henry jalison mwamlima vs robert jalison mwamlima others 2023 tzca 17949 13 december 2023

henry jalison mwamlima vs robert jalison mwamlima others 2023 tzca 17949 13 december 2023

The applicant failed to account for all days of delay, demonstrated negligence and apathy rather than diligence, and did not show sufficient cause for extension of time. The delay was actual, not technical, and the application lacked merit.

Citation
henry jalison mwamlima vs robert jalison mwamlima others 2023 tzca 17949 13 december 2023
Parties
Applicant: Henry Jalison Mwamlima; 1st Respondent: Robert Jalison Mwamlima and Christian Jalison Mwamlima (As Administrators of the estate of the late Jalison Mwamlima); 2nd Respondent: NBC Bank; 3rd Respondent: Vitus Mgaya
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Notice of Appeal, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Service of Notice of Appeal Appeal Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Jalison Mwamlima

Applicant

Robert Jalison Mwamlima and Christian Jalison Mwamlima (As Administrators of the estate of the late Jalison Mwamlima)

1st Respondent

NBC Bank

2nd Respondent

Vitus Mgaya

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to serve notice of appeal and related documents to the 2nd and 3rd respondents
  2. 2 Whether the delay was technical or actual
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated diligence as required by law

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for all days of delay, demonstrated negligence and apathy rather than diligence, and did not show sufficient cause for extension of time. The delay was actual, not technical, and the application lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs