hitech sai health care centre ltd vs joshua mwaituka ta rhino auction mart and another 2021 tzhclandd 192 6 may 2021

The applicant failed to establish good and sufficient cause for extension of time as the record showed service was effected and the reasons advanced were not substantiated.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: hitech sai health care centre ltd vs joshua mwaituka ta rhino auction mart and another 2021 tzhclandd 192 6 may 2021
Parties: Applicant: HITECH SAI HEALTH CARE CENTRE LTD; 1st Respondent: JOSHUA MWAITUKA t/a RHINO AUCTION MART; 2nd Respondent: JAYANTILAL NAGINDAS MEISURIA
Court: TANZLII
Jurisdiction: Tanzania
Judgment Date: 6 May 2021
Procedural Posture: Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome: Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics: Extension of Time, Service of Process, Ex Parte Orders, Bill of Costs
Source Language: english

Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Service of Process Ex Parte Orders Bill of Costs

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

HITECH SAI HEALTH CARE CENTRE LTD

Applicant

JOSHUA MWAITUKA t/a RHINO AUCTION MART

1st Respondent

JAYANTILAL NAGINDAS MEISURIA

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicant properly cited the law in moving the court for extension of time
2 Whether there were good and sufficient reasons to justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish good and sufficient cause for extension of time as the record showed service was effected and the reasons advanced were not substantiated.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

Application dismissed with costs

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.