johan harald christer abrahsson vs exim bank others 2018 tzca 261 10 september 2018

johan harald christer abrahsson vs exim bank others 2018 tzca 261 10 september 2018

The applicant was not idle but pursued an incompetent application that was struck out on a technicality; upon being struck out, the applicant acted promptly; a claim of illegality is a sufficient ground for extension of time; therefore, sufficient grounds exist to grant the extension sought.

Citation
johan harald christer abrahsson vs exim bank others 2018 tzca 261 10 september 2018
Parties
Applicant: Johan Harald Christer Abrahsson; 1st Respondent: Exim Bank (T) Limited; 2nd Respondent: Dascar Limited; 3rd Respondent: MAS & Associates Company Limited; 4th Respondent: Yusuph Shaban Matimbwa
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision Proceedings, Execution of Judgment, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Extension of Time Revision Proceedings Execution of Judgment Illegality as Ground for Extension

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Harald Christer Abrahsson

Applicant

Exim Bank (T) Limited

1st Respondent

Dascar Limited

2nd Respondent

MAS & Associates Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Yusuph Shaban Matimbwa

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient grounds exist to grant extension of time to file revision against execution proceedings and sale of property
  2. 2 Whether claim of illegality constitutes good cause for extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not idle but pursued an incompetent application that was struck out on a technicality; upon being struck out, the applicant acted promptly; a claim of illegality is a sufficient ground for extension of time; therefore, sufficient grounds exist to grant the extension sought.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Leave granted to file revision proceedings out of time
  • Revision to be instituted within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the ruling