CIVIL REFERENCE NO

CIVIL REFERENCE NO

The single Justice erred by prioritizing chances of success over demonstration of good cause for delay, contrary to Rule 10; applicant's pursuit of objection proceedings did not preclude revision; refusal to extend time was based on misapprehension of law.

Citation
CIVIL REFERENCE NO
Parties
Applicant: Khalid Hussein Muccadam; 1st Respondent: Ngulo Mtiga (As legal representative of the late Abubakar Omar Said Mitiga); 2nd Respondent: Tulibako Tabu Kyoma; 3rd Respondent: Mr. Abdallah Makatta Mwinyimtuma T/A Sensitive Auction Mart & Court Broker
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice Decision
Outcome
reference allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Objection Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Revision Objection Proceedings Abuse of Process

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalid Hussein Muccadam

Applicant

Ngulo Mtiga (As legal representative of the late Abubakar Omar Said Mitiga)

1st Respondent

Tulibako Tabu Kyoma

2nd Respondent

Mr. Abdallah Makatta Mwinyimtuma T/A Sensitive Auction Mart & Court Broker

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Reference / Ruling on Reference From Single Justice Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the single Justice erred in refusing extension of time to apply for revision
  2. 2 Whether pursuing objection proceedings precludes revision application
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of Rule 10 and Rule 62(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Ratio Decidendi

The single Justice erred by prioritizing chances of success over demonstration of good cause for delay, contrary to Rule 10; applicant's pursuit of objection proceedings did not preclude revision; refusal to extend time was based on misapprehension of law.

Court Disposition

reference allowed

Orders

  • Decision of single Justice in Civil Application No. 234/17 of 2017 quashed and set aside
  • Applicant granted sixty days from date of ruling to lodge application for revision