mbeya city council vs tanzania building works ltd others 2023 tzca 17948 13 december 2023

mbeya city council vs tanzania building works ltd others 2023 tzca 17948 13 december 2023

The affidavit did not contain hearsay as the deponent had direct knowledge of the facts. The applicant acted diligently and promptly in seeking the required documents, and the delay was caused by the High Court's failure to supply documents, not by the applicant's negligence. Sufficient cause was shown for the delay, warranting extension of time.

Citation
mbeya city council vs tanzania building works ltd others 2023 tzca 17948 13 december 2023
Parties
Applicant: Mbeya City Council; 1st Respondent: Tanzania Building Works Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Commercial Bank of Africa; 3rd Respondent: Jubilee Insurance Company of Tanzania Ltd
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Requirements, Hearsay in Affidavits, Court Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Affidavit Requirements Hearsay in Affidavits Court Discretion

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

Parties

Mbeya City Council

Applicant

Tanzania Building Works Ltd

1st Respondent

Commercial Bank of Africa

2nd Respondent

Jubilee Insurance Company of Tanzania Ltd

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supporting affidavit contained hearsay and was incurably defective
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause was shown to warrant extension of time to file supplementary record of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The affidavit did not contain hearsay as the deponent had direct knowledge of the facts. The applicant acted diligently and promptly in seeking the required documents, and the delay was caused by the High Court's failure to supply documents, not by the applicant's negligence. Sufficient cause was shown for the delay, warranting extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed with costs
  • Extension of 60 days granted to file supplementary record of appeal from date of ruling