james amo vs maulid d chambo others 2016 tzhc 2240 24 may 2016

james amo vs maulid d chambo others 2016 tzhc 2240 24 may 2016

The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause, namely the delay in obtaining necessary documents from the tribunal, from lodging the appeal in time. The delay was not attributable to the applicant but to the tribunal, thus extension of time is warranted.

Citation
james amo vs maulid d chambo others 2016 tzhc 2240 24 may 2016
Parties
Applicant: James Amo; Respondent: Maulid D. Chambo; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Limitation Period
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Limitation Period

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

Parties

James Amo

Applicant

Maulid D. Chambo

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause, namely the delay in obtaining necessary documents from the tribunal, from lodging the appeal in time. The delay was not attributable to the applicant but to the tribunal, thus extension of time is warranted.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to the applicant to lodge the appeal within fourteen (14) days from delivery of the ruling.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.