jocye charles mhina vs diana alex kajumulo others 2023 tzhclandd 17277 14 december 2023

jocye charles mhina vs diana alex kajumulo others 2023 tzhclandd 17277 14 december 2023

The applicant failed to account for the period of delay after becoming aware of the impugned decision, did not substantiate her claim of being underage, could not rely on technical delay as the defective applications were not filed by her, and the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Therefore, no sufficient cause was demonstrated to warrant extension of time.

Citation
jocye charles mhina vs diana alex kajumulo others 2023 tzhclandd 17277 14 december 2023
Parties
Applicant: Joyce Charles Mhina; 1st Respondent: Diana Alex Kajumulo; 2nd Respondent: Rose Amos; 3rd Respondent: Charles Forodha
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Limitation Period, Sufficient Cause, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Revision Limitation Period Sufficient Cause 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyce Charles Mhina

Applicant

Diana Alex Kajumulo

1st Respondent

Rose Amos

2nd Respondent

Charles Forodha

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to file an application for revision against the decision in Land Application No. 310 of 2020

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for the period of delay after becoming aware of the impugned decision, did not substantiate her claim of being underage, could not rely on technical delay as the defective applications were not filed by her, and the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. Therefore, no sufficient cause was demonstrated to warrant extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed without costs.