maheshkumar raojibhai patel vs karim shamshuddin suleman 2016 tzhccomd 2051 16 december 2016

maheshkumar raojibhai patel vs karim shamshuddin suleman 2016 tzhccomd 2051 16 december 2016

The application was filed under section 14 of the Law of Limitation Act, which does not apply to extension of time for filing witness statements; the correct provision is section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. Applications filed under wrong provisions must be struck out.

Citation
maheshkumar raojibhai patel vs karim shamshuddin suleman 2016 tzhccomd 2051 16 december 2016
Parties
Applicant: Maheshkumar Raojibhai Patel; Respondent: Karim Shamshuddin Suleman
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Witness Statements
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Witness Statements, Wrong Citation of Law
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Extension of Time Witness Statements Wrong Citation of Law

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maheshkumar Raojibhai Patel

Applicant

Karim Shamshuddin Suleman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Cause / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Witness Statements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 14 of the Law of Limitation Act applies to extension of time for filing witness statements
  2. 2 What is the proper legal provision for extension of time to file witness statements

Ratio Decidendi

The application was filed under section 14 of the Law of Limitation Act, which does not apply to extension of time for filing witness statements; the correct provision is section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code. Applications filed under wrong provisions must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • No order as to costs