mariya b mariya others vs kapunga rice project 2021 tzca 88 31 march 2021

mariya b mariya others vs kapunga rice project 2021 tzca 88 31 march 2021

The appeal was time barred because the appellants failed to file a written application for copies of proceedings, judgment, and decree within the prescribed thirty days and did not serve such application on the respondent, as required by Rule 90(1) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The certificate of delay was invalid as it relied on a letter not found in the record of appeal. Non-compliance with these mandatory requirements precluded the appellants from benefiting from the exception to the limitation period, rendering the appeal incompetent.

Citation
mariya b mariya others vs kapunga rice project 2021 tzca 88 31 march 2021
Parties
Appellant: Mayira B. Mayira; Appellant: Daudi William; Appellant: Alatwinusa Ndege; Appellant: Baraka Mkwawa; Appellant: Sadick Mwasumbi; Respondent: Kapunga Rice Project
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Outcome
Appeal struck out as time barred
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Appeal Procedure, Certificate of Delay, Service of Documents
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Appeal Procedure Certificate of Delay Service of Documents

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayira B. Mayira

Appellant

Daudi William

Appellant

Alatwinusa Ndege

Appellant

Baraka Mkwawa

Appellant

Sadick Mwasumbi

Appellant

Kapunga Rice Project

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was time barred under Rule 90(1), (2), and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 due to failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period and failure to comply with requirements for requesting and serving copies of proceedings, judgment, and decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was time barred because the appellants failed to file a written application for copies of proceedings, judgment, and decree within the prescribed thirty days and did not serve such application on the respondent, as required by Rule 90(1) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The certificate of delay was invalid as it relied on a letter not found in the record of appeal. Non-compliance with these mandatory requirements precluded the appellants from benefiting from the exception to the limitation period, rendering the appeal incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out as time barred

Orders

  • Appeal struck out with costs for being time barred