henry julius tesha vs richard ramadhani administrator of the estate of the late ramadhani kasisi mwakasula others 2021 tzhc 9406 17 december 2021

henry julius tesha vs richard ramadhani administrator of the estate of the late ramadhani kasisi mwakasula others 2021 tzhc 9406 17 december 2021

The application is time barred as it was filed after the expiry of the statutory sixty-day limitation period, and the applicant failed to seek extension of time; court advice did not override statutory requirements.

Citation
henry julius tesha vs richard ramadhani administrator of the estate of the late ramadhani kasisi mwakasula others 2021 tzhc 9406 17 december 2021
Parties
Applicant: Henry Julius Tesha; 1st Respondent: Richard Ramadhani Kasisi; 2nd Respondent: Yasini Chuma Kilama; 3rd Respondent: David Yusuph Nyang’ondo; 4th Respondent: Jiunge Nzuo Bukwimba; 5th Respondent: Mwavale Silalika Makolo; 6th Respondent: Ibrahimu Silakilo Makolo
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Land Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application dismissed as time barred.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Revision Proceedings, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Revision Proceedings Preliminary Objection

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Julius Tesha

Applicant

Richard Ramadhani Kasisi

1st Respondent

Yasini Chuma Kilama

2nd Respondent

David Yusuph Nyang’ondo

3rd Respondent

Jiunge Nzuo Bukwimba

4th Respondent

Mwavale Silalika Makolo

5th Respondent

Ibrahimu Silakilo Makolo

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision is time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The application is time barred as it was filed after the expiry of the statutory sixty-day limitation period, and the applicant failed to seek extension of time; court advice did not override statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as time barred.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs payable to the 1st respondent only.