martha emmanuel karlo vs jesca gordon elias karlo and another 2020 tzhc 644 31 march 2020

martha emmanuel karlo vs jesca gordon elias karlo and another 2020 tzhc 644 31 march 2020

The applicant failed to account for the entire period of delay, the delay was inordinate, and there was a lack of diligence. The reasons advanced, including technical delay, illegality, and financial incapacity, did not constitute sufficient cause. Therefore, the application for extension of time was dismissed.

Citation
martha emmanuel karlo vs jesca gordon elias karlo and another 2020 tzhc 644 31 march 2020
Parties
Applicant: Martha Emmanuel Karlo; 1st Respondent: Jesca Gordon Elias Karlo; 2nd Respondent: Elisha Karlo Muhehe
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Sufficient Cause, Probate Administration, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Extension of Time Sufficient Cause Probate Administration Illegality as Ground for Extension

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martha Emmanuel Karlo

Applicant

Jesca Gordon Elias Karlo

1st Respondent

Elisha Karlo Muhehe

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to apply to set aside the order discharging administrators of the estate
  2. 2 Whether technical delay, illegality, and financial incapacity constitute sufficient cause for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for the entire period of delay, the delay was inordinate, and there was a lack of diligence. The reasons advanced, including technical delay, illegality, and financial incapacity, did not constitute sufficient cause. Therefore, the application for extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs