julius emmanuel joseph another vs martine matiku niraha 2023 tzhclandd 17130 22 november 2023

julius emmanuel joseph another vs martine matiku niraha 2023 tzhclandd 17130 22 november 2023

The applicants failed to account for the delay between the dismissal of their previous application and the filing of the present application, and did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation for their absence or the alleged technical delay. Therefore, they did not meet the threshold for extension of time.

Citation
julius emmanuel joseph another vs martine matiku niraha 2023 tzhclandd 17130 22 november 2023
Parties
Applicant: Julius Emmanuel Joseph; Applicant: Julius Emmanuel Chiwalala (As the administrator of the Estate of Emmanuel Joseph Chiwalala); Respondent: Martin Matiku Niraha
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Technical Delay
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Jurisdiction Illegality as Ground for Extension Technical 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Emmanuel Joseph

Applicant

Julius Emmanuel Chiwalala (As the administrator of the Estate of Emmanuel Joseph Chiwalala)

Applicant

Martin Matiku Niraha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether technical delay and alleged illegality justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to account for the delay between the dismissal of their previous application and the filing of the present application, and did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation for their absence or the alleged technical delay. Therefore, they did not meet the threshold for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs