CIVIL APPLICATION NO 229 17 OF 2023 MARTHA BONIFFACE MACHELA ANOTHER VS JOSEPH SWILA

CIVIL APPLICATION NO 229 17 OF 2023 MARTHA BONIFFACE MACHELA ANOTHER VS JOSEPH SWILA

The applicants accounted for the entire period of delay, including technical delay during the pendency of an incompetent appeal and the period spent obtaining the withdrawal order and preparing the application. The alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record and thus not a sufficient ground. The application for extension of time was granted based on sufficient cause shown for the delay.

Citation
CIVIL APPLICATION NO 229 17 OF 2023 MARTHA BONIFFACE MACHELA ANOTHER VS JOSEPH SWILA
Parties
1st Applicant: Martha Boniface Machela (The Administratrix of the estate of Boniface Machela); 2nd Applicant: Martha Boniface Machela; Respondent: Joseph Swila
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge an Application for Revision
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Technical Delay, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Accounting for Delay
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Revision Technical Delay Illegality as Ground for Extension Accounting for Delay

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martha Boniface Machela (The Administratrix of the estate of Boniface Machela)

1st Applicant

Martha Boniface Machela

2nd Applicant

Joseph Swila

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Lodge an Application for Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned decision was tainted with illegality
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have accounted for each day of delay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants accounted for the entire period of delay, including technical delay during the pendency of an incompetent appeal and the period spent obtaining the withdrawal order and preparing the application. The alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record and thus not a sufficient ground. The application for extension of time was granted based on sufficient cause shown for the delay.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicants to lodge the requisite application within sixty (60) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs to follow the event in the intended revision.