mb business ltd vs amos david kassanda others 2019 tzca 555 7 august 2019

mb business ltd vs amos david kassanda others 2019 tzca 555 7 august 2019

Applicant was not a party to the proceedings and was unaware of the ex parte judgment; delay was excusable and not due to indolence; alleged illegality of the judgment constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time.

Citation
mb business ltd vs amos david kassanda others 2019 tzca 555 7 august 2019
Parties
Applicant: M.B. Business Limited; Respondent: Amos David Kassanda; Respondent: Commissioner for Lands; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Ex Parte Judgment, Right to Be Heard, Illegality of Decision
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Revision Ex Parte Judgment Right to Be Heard Illegality of Decision

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.B. Business Limited

Applicant

Amos David Kassanda

Respondent

Commissioner for Lands

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause exists to extend time for revision application
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegality of ex parte judgment justifies extension
  3. 3 Whether applicant was deprived of property without being heard

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant was not a party to the proceedings and was unaware of the ex parte judgment; delay was excusable and not due to indolence; alleged illegality of the judgment constitutes sufficient reason for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant to lodge intended application for revision within sixty days from date of ruling
  • Costs to follow the event in the intended revision