lawrence bishobe vs dar es salaam city council 1994 tzhc 403 9 august 1994
Applicant acted diligently but appealed against the wrong order; sufficient cause for delay established. Extension of time and injunction granted to preserve rights pending appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- lawrence bishobe vs dar es salaam city council 1994 tzhc 403 9 august 1994
- Parties
- Appellant: Lawrence Bishobe; Respondent: Dar es Salaam City Council
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 9 August 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Injunction
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Injunction, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Lawrence Bishobe
Appellant
Dar es Salaam City Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to extension of time to file an appeal
- 2 Whether an injunction restraining demolition of suit premises pending appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
Applicant acted diligently but appealed against the wrong order; sufficient cause for delay established. Extension of time and injunction granted to preserve rights pending appeal.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Extension of time to file appeal granted
- Applicant given thirty days to file appeal
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
B k T K E - HIGH- COtJ-R? ;C P T A N Z A K i A A T Ji.R ES S A L A A M H I S C . C I V I L APPI C A T I O N NO. .50 OF 1 9 9 4 LAWRENCE BISHOBE _____ _____ , . . . ... ........ APPELLANT , -versus . D A E ES S A L * i M C I T Y '( F N C I L ’ ...... . ....... R E S P O N D E N T RULING 1-lAINA. J ( <* This is an application for extension of time file an appeal to this Court against the decisioA of the Resident Magistrate’s bourt of Kisutu, Aar es Sallam^and for ||i order to restrain the Respondent from demolishing the suit premises; pending the final determination of the intended appeal. As regard the'application for extension of time tf file an appeal,;:it is noted that the decision of the I^wer court was delivered on 2 April 1991. Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal t* tnis Court, vide Civil Appeal N g # 18 1992. His appeal was against the order dismissing his application t<5 set aside the* dismissal.. .5e. had applied to the trial court t- set aside the dismissal of "his *gaeeiw&ioh was made f r non-appearance. The proper procedurg, ag v Mkude, J held in Civil Appeal' i-:o. 18 of 1992 was against the trial court's order, which dismissed his application for setting aside the dismissal order* The applicant had acted diligently, and in tim^# when he appealed t* this 'Court, but his appeal was a gains^ an Qrd^r in which, the suit was di&missed f§r n d i ^ a p p g a r a n ^ ^ But that was-dealt with w h e n he applied tg set asid§ %h^ . dismissal or£er. In t h e ‘ circumstances, as Mlcgdg, the applicant should have appealed to this cour£ a g a i n s ^ the trial •hurt's order of '2 April 1991 dismissing application-to-set aside the dismis*al.f^rder, *1 There are sufficient eaus^ the dsi§ yf gtnd accordingly, the application e x t e n s ^ J i ^ f tirng rfppwtj to W is ig gjraiiAefl^ as p ray^ L," The applicant's se.ond ,_.rayer for an order to restrain the Respondent from der >lisi ing the suit premises pending the final determination of the intended appeal, is alsr granted. The applicant is ,,iven thirty days within which to file the appeal to this Court. V?. J. M A I N A JUDGE 9 August, 1994- •Delivered in the presence of the applicant and in the absence of the Respondent. (A ! |A f ' ■ JUDGE 9 August 1994