19940809 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
The applicant acted diligently but appealed against the wrong order; sufficient cause exists for delay; extension of time and injunction granted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19940809 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- 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, Appeals
- 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 should be granted extension of time to file an appeal
- 2 Whether an injunction restraining demolition of suit premises pending appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant acted diligently but appealed against the wrong order; sufficient cause exists for delay; extension of time and injunction granted.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Extension of time to file appeal granted; applicant given thirty days to file appeal
- Injunction restraining respondent from demolishing suit premises pending appeal granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
• I f . - \, .,,, ( . '" ,, ' HISC ~ .CIVIL Al:?;E'J CATION NO •. 50 OF 1994 • LAWRENCE BISHOBE •••.•. ; •••• ; •••••.•• ~- • • • •. • .APPE1'LANT t . ·.versus , · . _ , DAR :i:;s SAL.~:\.M cITi 'c T.mcr1 ·•••••• ~· ••••• ~ ~-:RESFONDBN'.i· ... .'"' '. ,- ..,, V RULIN~ • "• ife' ' . if\, . f. V ' .. ·v- t: -.{ '\ This is an application for extension of time \t file an app<3al to this Court against tI1'e decisiori Of the Resident 11ag(:strate I s ~ourt of Kisutu, Jar es Sa1c'fam't1and for order f1 to restrain the ttespondent dernolishihg the suit premises:from . pending the final det?rmination - '~-,,..,~. .of .the intended appeal. ~ ,. As regard the application for extension of time te file an appeal; i~ -:Ls, nott=:d that. the de~i.sion of the 1.wer court was delivered on 2 _April 1991. Thereaft~r, the appliGant filed an·. appeal t• t/iis Court, vide Civil Appeal ··No• l8 t QI 1992. His appeal was against the order dismissin~ his app'-icatien t6 set aside the· dismissal •.. Be . had a.ppl~d to the trial court t · set aside the dismissal of "'his •9aee• Whioh was made f ~ non-appearance. The proper procedur@ 1 ae v Mkude, ,.f held in Civil kppcal·Fo. 18 of 1992 was tliaf,l';a1J. against the trial court's order.which dismissed h18 application tor setting aside the dismissal order. The applic2.nt had acted diligently, ano. in t1mt• when he appealed te this -Court, but his appeal was~agains, an. grdf;r in wh~cli. the suit was 9-ismissed /tr no~appijar:~!lQit Bt,:lt. that ~1as· dEialt with whsn he applied tQ &et aside trt-·· diami~sal ◊rcJ.er. In -the· circumi;;te.nces, as, Mkt,'de,. i••ac'Q.wre;. the e.pplicant should have appealed to this cour* a,ai1Ws+ the trial·•Dur~'s crder of·2 April 19~1 dism~ss~ h1t' application to set a~id~ ~he dismi~l,,trde~~ ~, • ' ...; t.¥;1' ' • • • -; C j • • • ... T~~re are su~fioient ea.u.~ ~ t}J.e. d~l.tf,. ?-nd _ . a~W~~~gl;y-, . tl~e ap~lica tiQlJ 11:r e~tens.J:fn.,.,f. tj.me; ~ . ~p~J: to '!jhi~ ~rt-.. ~ g . r ~ t as p,raytp-, . ,:9 • ; 0 . • ..... ~ ,<i' - -•·fl.;. _..... 2 ~he applicant's se~ond jrayer for an order to restrain the nespondent from de~Qisting the suit premises pending the final determinatio11 of the intended appe~l, is alsr granted. The applicant is , ,i ven thirty days within which to file the appeal to thi3 Court. W. J. MA.INA ·JUDGE 9 August, 1994 Delivered in the presence of the applicant and in the absence. of the Respon&ent. .! . I J. • I, I\ . \~\\-. ; _;\ rA , ,.,., r~ . . J \; W. J. I'lJ.l..INA JUDGI: 9 August 1994