19946023 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant's contradictory explanations for delay in filing the appeal were fatal to his application for extension of time; therefore, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19946023 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: J.J.JY Morjoo; Respondent: Hadija Hayisi (estate)
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 8 June 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Probate Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Letters of Administration, Contradictory Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
J.J.JY Morjoo
Appellant
Hadija Hayisi (estate)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Probate Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant had sufficient cause for extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing grant of letters of administration
- 2 Whether contradictory explanations for delay are fatal to the application
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's contradictory explanations for delay in filing the appeal were fatal to his application for extension of time; therefore, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs here and in the court below
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN TH2 ITIGTI COURT OF T,:mZJJ>TlL PC<) CDTIL !J'PE:iLo r'Oo 113 OF 1992 (FROM THE DECI3ION OF TJil DLJT..UC~.1 COJ.:i.T OF KINOJ:IDONI NL1 KISUTU IN" ruse., CDTYL .lLPPLIC~'.:I1=i:O}:J / lW1' 7 OF 1991) _ _ _ ........, L _.. ~: ./.J.JJY MORJJOO~ o o 6 • ct M• •a~.- •-"'~o,o,t1...,-o •·• •·• o-o•o·, f,PPE[,1~1.NT ~ 1SCJS ________ ....... /[DGMENT llb.e a.ppolla.nt filed ar. applicc.tion f o:-c· 2.crant of Letters of Aomi nj stration in respcot· ot the osta.to of a person ho: claimed was oalled ~ j a . F~ahcni, d.ccoascdo The su1Jjcrnt matter of tho estate was a, house on Plot 13 Lcm'Jor4 Stroot~ in Dr.:,:, os salnrun. 0 The respondent f ilod OJ.1 objootion and wont on to :prove bcfo:rc tho trial Primary Court that tho said house bolo~ to his lc..to g:;:r,:ndmothor, one Hadijn H8)'Ilisi. lifter oonsido:ring al~ tho ovid.onc0 · tho triol Primary court upheld tho objection n.."ld simisf:t";)il. tho npplicGtion for tho grant. h Primary Court dolivcrod. its 1.."L."l~ jud0 mcnt on 8th June, 1991. ~ appellant had 30 dcys within -rhich to appeal age.inst tho d.ooisi~ ~Q did not do so within tho proscribod °li,mo, So ho OJ>pliod f-:xr e~ntion of time within which to do so. In his ruling the lottt'nod :Oiati:.-ict Magistrate obso:rvod tb.n.t tho ap~ant took no notion until 8,h ilUt;.,"'US\, 199lJ that is after a period of Ltx;ty dayso ~ ~ District Magis~to d.isoovm-dd. ~ t th0 appellant ha4, a:ppool ns of 8·4 Augu.st, 1991. . t ~ alSQ ~oid Vho raquis.it foe for tho ~ ~ho a.~ollnnt was called upon to show oo.uso wl\} tho applioq.t:i.t>n should. bo olJ,.owedJ ho gave tvro contradioti:,ry norsions\ At first h9J oonto~ed thn.t ho had doloyoo to lodge tho apj,)eru. b0CaUl1.o ho had ~ellell. si~ Tb.a~ Statement is contain~ j,n his lotter by which.. lie fiJ.¢ an ~plication tor oxtontion of time. When ho was ~ea., j,,rl t~. oqurse ot houril\3 tile application, about 11hat had dolayod him ho so.14 h? had. tu.a.cl hio nppoal boforo the 8th +UlgllS'i.t 1991. h learllOd ~tjct \ I 2 Ma&istra.to found tho t:1osc ?ontradiotion wo:,:,c fntal to tho applioatiollJ far if tho appollc;nt had filed o.n appo::i.1 in ti;iu thoro was no point why. ho hod to sock extontion of time to file another o,ppcul in tho same case. I ogreoo Tl.10 a.ppollo.nt has repoo;l;od ·;ho sc1.mo contentions in his nppocll. A fto:;:- oxwnining tho record of iho lower cott.:-ts, ;J.nd for the ronsons whioh 1 I havo sot forth a:bovo, I find :10 ~.o~'it in thi:.:; a.ppcru.o La.stly, nono of tho portic s was proscnt r,t tho hearing of this appool•. Efi:orts to serve thorn have not boen successful o.nd. this apponl, having been filed in 1992, is a fairl;r old. matter. I havo thorofo:r.o decided. ' to dotorm:Lne it in toms of tho proviso ,to scc·liion 35 of tho ,Mllgisu-ates Oo'Ul't A ct, 1984, . ") \/ In the ·final ano.ly:i.ais tho tiPI>Ocl i:::: d..i.smissod with costs hara and in tJJ.o oou.i.---t below. ,,