oc ommy tanzlii H

oc ommy tanzlii H

The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time by showing she was not served or heard in Matrimonial Cause No. 194 of 2023, constituting an apparent illegality on the face of the record. The respondent failed to provide material evidence to the contrary. Extension of time is granted solely on the ground of illegality.

Citation
oc ommy tanzlii H
Parties
Applicant: H.E.R; Respondent: V.L.R
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Misc. Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Right to Be Heard, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Matrimonial Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Constitutional Law Extension of Time Right to Be Heard Illegality as Ground for Extension Matrimonial Proceedings

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.E.R

Applicant

V.L.R

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Misc. Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file revision against Matrimonial Cause No. 194 of 2023
  2. 2 Whether denial of the right to be heard constitutes illegality justifying extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time by showing she was not served or heard in Matrimonial Cause No. 194 of 2023, constituting an apparent illegality on the face of the record. The respondent failed to provide material evidence to the contrary. Extension of time is granted solely on the ground of illegality.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant to file application for revision within 30 days of the date of this ruling
  • No order as to costs