20170807 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

20170807 TZCA Dar es Salaam2

The application was misconceived and incompetent because the applicant sought extension of time to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant extension of time to apply for leave, instead of seeking a 'second bite' before the Court of Appeal as required by Rule 45(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.

Citation
20170807 TZCA Dar es Salaam2
Parties
Applicant: Khalifa Maulid Matambo; Respondent: Peter Ki Maro
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application struck out for want of competence with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Competence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Appeals Leave to Appeal Procedural Competence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalifa Maulid Matambo

Applicant

Peter Ki Maro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal is properly before the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant followed the correct procedure after denial of extension of time by the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The application was misconceived and incompetent because the applicant sought extension of time to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant extension of time to apply for leave, instead of seeking a 'second bite' before the Court of Appeal as required by Rule 45(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of competence with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application is struck out for want of competence.
  • The respondent is awarded costs.