20000830 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the appeal and failed to file within the prescribed time after the judgment and decree were certified, rendering the appeal time-barred.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20000830 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Justoni Mkisi; Respondent: Sauhni Mwanyoka Super Star Bus Service
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 August 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed as time-barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Appeal Out of Time
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Justoni Mkisi
Applicant
Sauhni Mwanyoka Super Star Bus Service
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the appeal and failed to file within the prescribed time after the judgment and decree were certified, rendering the appeal time-barred.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed as time-barred
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN 'THE HIGH . COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 60 OF 1998 -· JUSTONI MKISI ••• o o • • • • • • APPLICANT VERSUS SAU-HNI MWANYOKA SUPER STAR BUS SERVICE ••• RESPONDEN'r. RULING. ){EMA J. J. ·--- This is a preliminary objection by the respondents in this appeal to the effect that the appeal has been filed out of time. It is on record that following the judgement of the Resident Magistrate's Court dated 12/8/97, appellant applied for copy of judgement and decree on 13/8/97, on the day the notice was filed. The appellant lodg~d his appeal ou 25/6/98. Mr. Byalushengo learned Advocate, who argued the preliminary objection exparte upon the default of appearance of the appellant, informed the court that the certified_copy of judgement was ready on 27/1/98 ancl the Decree thereto on 26/1/98,,. It took the appellant five months to lodge the appeal thereafter ar1d Mr. Byalushengo "' submits that tne appeal is llopelesely out of time~ Although the apvellant in his written cuu.'1te1; affidavit d.uted 9th AuguGt, 2000 has stated that the jud~~ment was supplied to him on 1"/6/1998, I agre~ with Mr. Byalushengo that th2 appellant if vigilant should have been seized with both the judgement and d~cree shortly after ~;hey were certified in January, 1998 • . Obvisiously appellant .vas not diligent in presecutin13 his appeal.· Accorcliris-ly 1 ' r sustain the pre:...iminary obj2ction and l find tho a;_~,peo.l •to"· ha,;e been field out of_ tim~• I therefore des ,1iss it with costs., 1 .S.JJhema JUDGE