hamisi mrisho kidogoli vs emmanuel severre 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16947 21 september 2023

hamisi mrisho kidogoli vs emmanuel severre 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16947 21 september 2023

Applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for extension of time as alleged illegalities were not apparent on the face of the record and required a long process to establish. Applicant did not account for the inordinate delay of eight years and failed to show diligence. The court's discretion was not justified to grant extension.

Citation
hamisi mrisho kidogoli vs emmanuel severre 2 others 2023 tzhclandd 16947 21 september 2023
Parties
Applicant: Hamisi Mrisho Kidogoli; 1st Respondent: Emmanuel Severre; 2nd Respondent: William Managha Gideme; 3rd Respondent: LEP Auctioneers Company Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of merit with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Locus Standi, Delay in Prosecution
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Revision Illegality as Ground for Extension Locus Standi Delay in Prosecution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamisi Mrisho Kidogoli

Applicant

Emmanuel Severre

1st Respondent

William Managha Gideme

2nd Respondent

LEP Auctioneers Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause for extension of time to file revision
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegalities in tribunal proceedings justify extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has accounted for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for extension of time as alleged illegalities were not apparent on the face of the record and required a long process to establish. Applicant did not account for the inordinate delay of eight years and failed to show diligence. The court's discretion was not justified to grant extension.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of merit with costs.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is not granted.
  • Costs to follow the event.