henry jalison mwamlima vs robert jalison mwamlima others 2024 tzca 109 23 february 2024

henry jalison mwamlima vs robert jalison mwamlima others 2024 tzca 109 23 february 2024

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and the omission by counsel to serve the 2nd and 3rd respondents was due to lack of diligence, which does not constitute sufficient cause for extension of time.

Citation
henry jalison mwamlima vs robert jalison mwamlima others 2024 tzca 109 23 february 2024
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
23 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference Against Single Justice's Decision Refusing Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Process, Diligence of Counsel
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Service of Process Diligence of Counsel

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 4 Authorities cited 4 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 Reference / Ruling on Reference Against Single Justice's Decision Refusing Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant accounted for each day of delay in seeking extension of time to serve notice of appeal and related documents on the 2nd and 3rd respondents
  2. 2 Whether lack of diligence by counsel constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and the omission by counsel to serve the 2nd and 3rd respondents was due to lack of diligence, which does not constitute sufficient cause for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs