Reference No
The submission date via the electronic filing system is deemed the official filing date for purposes of limitation, thus the reference was filed within the prescribed period and is not time barred.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- Reference No
- Parties
- Applicant: Hashimu Ubwa Matope; Respondent: Ramadhani Yakubu Nyamlani (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Yakubu Saidi Nyamlani)
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection overruled
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Electronic Filing, Reference Proceedings, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hashimu Ubwa Matope
Applicant
Ramadhani Yakubu Nyamlani (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Yakubu Saidi Nyamlani)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Reference / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the reference is time barred under Order 7(1) and (2) of GN No. 264 of 2015
- 2 Whether the date of electronic submission constitutes the filing date under Rule 21(1) of the Electronic Filing Rules 2018
Ratio Decidendi
The submission date via the electronic filing system is deemed the official filing date for purposes of limitation, thus the reference was filed within the prescribed period and is not time barred.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- Objection overruled
- Costs to abide the main cause
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM REFERENCE NO. 18120 OF 2024 (Arising From Wise. Land Application No. 3916 of 2024, Land Division) HASHIMU UBWA MATOPE.................................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS RAMADHANI YAKUBU NYAMLANI (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Yakubu Saidi Nyamlani)............................................................. RESPONDENT RULING 8th to 22nd October, 2024 E.B. LU VAN DA, J This application is made under the enabling provision of Order 7(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the Advocates Remuneration Order, GN No. 264 of 2015. The Applicant named above is inviting this Court to determine this reference and quash the decision of the Deputy Registrar refusing an extension of time for the Applicant to file an application to set aside ruling and order in the Bill of Cost No. 175 of 2023, which was heard ex-parte after the Applicant's advocate defaulted to file a reply submission therefrom. In turn, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application is incompetent or bad in law as the same is time barred. The Respondent submitted that the ruling in Misc. Land Application No. 3916 of 2024 was delivered on 28/06/2024 and the Applicant filed this reference on i 26/07/2024 after elapse of twenty-nine days, citing of filing appearing on the date on the chamber summons, affidavit and exchequer receipts. He submitted that the Applicant was supposed to file this reference before 18/07/2024. He submitted that the application is time barred, citing Order 7(1) and (2) GN No. 264 of 2015 (supra). On rebuttal, Mr. S.K. Madulu learned Counsel for Applicant submitted that the reference was filed within time on 19/07/2024 which was the exact deadline for filing the same to the fact that twenty-one days started to run from 29/06/2024, citing rule 21(1) of the Electronic Filing Rules 2018. Going by the records in particular the digital file, at the remarks reflect submission date was on Friday 19/07/2024 and filing date Tuesday 23/07/2024. However, case summary reflect the filing date Friday 26/07/2024. According to rule 21(1) of Electronic Filing Rules (supra), provides that, A document shall be considered to have been filed if it is submitted through the filing system before midnight East Africa time on the date it is submitted unless a specific time is set by the court or rejected' Therefore, a submission date is taken as an officio date of filing for purpose of these Rules. In that regard, the argument of the learned Counsel for Applicant that the reference was filed within time, is valid. 2 Therefore, the objection is overruled. Costs will abide the main cause. Ruling delivered in the presence of the Respondent and Mr. S.K. Madulu learned Counsel for Applicant. DEPUTY REGISTRAR 22/10/2024 3