19950314 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The application is dismissed for being barred by limitation as the applicant failed to file within the prescribed period and did not seek extension of time.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19950314 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kidete Vegetable Supplies Company; Defendant: Said Seif Said
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation, Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment
- 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
Kidete Vegetable Supplies Company
Plaintiff
Said Seif Said
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to set aside ex-parte judgment is barred by limitation
Ratio Decidendi
The application is dismissed for being barred by limitation as the applicant failed to file within the prescribed period and did not seek extension of time.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
~ : ·~· . _,,.~"...-~~~-~·.. . ·· f .,, ·. .JI. . . .... t: . .::.r·-: -::-. IN TEB HIGH COF'.RT OF 'l'l\.i1ZJiI'{I.A AT DAR l£'S .SAI&1"..l-i CIVIL CASE !>;O. 86 OF •,. KIDF.TE VBG:CT!,Brn SUPrIIES ca·-1Pli.NY ••••••• 0 0 0 .E'LUNTirF i. Si\ID SEIF SAID •••••••••• ,, • ., • , " •••..••••••••• DE1'Y.ND1\NT RULING Judgment in thfo case ,.,a.13 pronounced ex--parte on 13th March, 1995 after the defend:=-nt failed to apr.0<Jr on ~?nd January, 1?93, which i-1as the cla.te set for continuation of hearing •. Tl~e appJicant/defendant now apnc.ifU'J .-,for setting a.side the ex-parte ,judgment, submitting that on ?2nd January, 1993 hr> ,-!a,.. ill. He r;a.y,-=; in:=ipite his ilJ.nesr-- he came on 2;:,nd January, 1993, but waP told th::it the· c.<>we had b•" n set for judgment on l '3th March, 1995. Hir- preflent ,:3r,nJ.ication wafl brought on 6th May, 1q9_3. The nPriod of limit,,tion of thif tym,. of a-nnlication iP 750 days. Thr-rP. h-"•P not been an !3."rJ 0,l:ic· tion for extewdon of time. Mr. K""U>'i for t!Y respondent/plaintiff has raised a point by way of a preliminary obj-ection contending that the applicAtion if' barred by limitfltion. I am of thE> viev thnt th"' objection mu~t be upheld. The anplicAnt .say,s h'=' wa::: aware on ?;:>nd Janu8.ry, 1993 that the C!'!f.le had be n fixed for judgment on 13th March, 1997i. YAt he took no steps to ha,re the judgmmit s0t aside soon Hfter 13th March, 1q93. Secondly, he did not apnly for extenr--ion of timP. withi!! 1:rhich to file the apn1icc1tion after such time ~:=:id eYpired. I dismie=:..s the a11plication, 1-:ith costs, for being ba.r:rcd by J.imifation. L. ,.\. A. KYANDO JUroE DAR E-S SM.JJ.. M l:!_~~~-l}_L 19a5·.. This is to certify th;:-it thi:-:- fr th~ tru0. copy of th,, original. . t R;.JISTfo· ! DibT~ICT __ ........- ..- H I ~;l#ro•_>II...,_,..,, -·· l. • ~· .-:-:.~·~~-