john bullet kasidi vs capital development authority others 2015 tzhc 2039 13 march 2015

john bullet kasidi vs capital development authority others 2015 tzhc 2039 13 march 2015

The intended appeal is not maintainable as no appeal lies against the order refusing to set aside sale of immovable property except as specified under Order XXI rule 72 and 92, which do not apply to the present case. The application is therefore dismissed for want of merit.

Citation
john bullet kasidi vs capital development authority others 2015 tzhc 2039 13 march 2015
Parties
Applicant: John Bullet Kasidi; 1st Respondent: Capital Development Authority; 2nd Respondent: Erick Auction Mart & Court Brokers; 3rd Respondent: Tanzania Schools & Offices Co. Ltd.
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appealability of Orders, Limitation Period, Preliminary Objections
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appealability of Orders Limitation Period Preliminary Objections

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Bullet Kasidi

Applicant

Capital Development Authority

1st Respondent

Erick Auction Mart & Court Brokers

2nd Respondent

Tanzania Schools & Offices Co. Ltd.

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal is time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the application is defective for wrong citation of law
  3. 3 Whether the order refusing to set aside sale is appealable

Ratio Decidendi

The intended appeal is not maintainable as no appeal lies against the order refusing to set aside sale of immovable property except as specified under Order XXI rule 72 and 92, which do not apply to the present case. The application is therefore dismissed for want of merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed for want of merits
  • Costs awarded to respondents