haruna kahinga vs editha peter 2020 tzhc 3290 30 october 2020

haruna kahinga vs editha peter 2020 tzhc 3290 30 october 2020

The applicant failed to provide sufficient and satisfactory reasons for the 22-day delay after receiving the judgment, and drafting letters or approaching the court for appeal purposes does not constitute good cause for extension of time.

Citation
haruna kahinga vs editha peter 2020 tzhc 3290 30 october 2020
Parties
Applicant: Haruna Kahinga; Respondent: Editha Peter
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Limitation Period, Good Cause Requirement
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Limitation Period Good Cause Requirement

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haruna Kahinga

Applicant

Editha Peter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Enlargement of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient and satisfactory reasons for the 22-day delay after receiving the judgment, and drafting letters or approaching the court for appeal purposes does not constitute good cause for extension of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • application dismissed with costs for want of sufficient cause in application for enlargement of time