josephine emmanuel mlay vs emmanuel elifatao mlai others 2018 tzhc 2185 29 august 2018

josephine emmanuel mlay vs emmanuel elifatao mlai others 2018 tzhc 2185 29 august 2018

The court found that the applicant was granted an extension of time and filed the appeal within the permitted period. The dismissal of the appeal for being time barred was based on a failure to consider the extension order, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reviewed and set aside...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
josephine emmanuel mlay vs emmanuel elifatao mlai others 2018 tzhc 2185 29 august 2018
Parties
Appellant: Josephine Emanuel Mlay w/o Emanuel Elifatao Mlai; 1st Respondent: Emanuel Elifatao Mlai; 2nd Respondent: Omary Frank Mshana; 3rd Respondent: Glady Frank Mshana; 4th Respondent: Anne Frank Mshana; 5th Respondent: M/S Majembe Auction Mart Ltd
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order
Outcome
Application for review allowed; dismissal order set aside; appeal restored; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Review of Court Decision, Extension of Time, Dismissal for Time Bar, Restoration of Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land Law Review of Court Decision Extension of Time Dismissal for Time Bar Restoration of Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephine Emanuel Mlay w/o Emanuel Elifatao Mlai

Appellant

Emanuel Elifatao Mlai

1st Respondent

Omary Frank Mshana

2nd Respondent

Glady Frank Mshana

3rd Respondent

Anne Frank Mshana

4th Respondent

M/S Majembe Auction Mart Ltd

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Review / Ruling on Application for Review of Dismissal Order

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the dismissal of the appeal as time barred
  2. 2 Whether the order for extension of time was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was granted an extension of time and filed the appeal within the permitted period. The dismissal of the appeal for being time barred was based on a failure to consider the extension order, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record. The court reviewed and set aside the dismissal order and restored the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed; dismissal order set aside; appeal restored; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The decision dismissing Land Appeal No. 08/2015 for being time barred is reviewed and set aside.
  • Land Appeal No. 08/2015 is restored for hearing and determination.