hilda ado charle vs the permanent secretary ministry of defence and national service and another 2023 tzhc 23271 13 december 2023

hilda ado charle vs the permanent secretary ministry of defence and national service and another 2023 tzhc 23271 13 december 2023

The applicant failed to show reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay, did not account for the 18-year delay, and did not provide evidence in her affidavit to support her reasons. The legal requirements for extension of time were not met.

Citation
hilda ado charle vs the permanent secretary ministry of defence and national service and another 2023 tzhc 23271 13 december 2023
Parties
Applicant: Hilda Ado Charle; 1st Respondent: The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service; 2nd Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Limitation Period, Employment Termination, Exhaustion of Remedies
Source Language
English

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilda Ado Charle

Applicant

The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service

1st Respondent

The Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable or sufficient cause for extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay, did not account for the 18-year delay, and did not provide evidence in her affidavit to support her reasons. The legal requirements for extension of time were not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs