mohamed iqbal vs wahidi fauzi sefu 2022 tzca 376 16 june 2022

mohamed iqbal vs wahidi fauzi sefu 2022 tzca 376 16 june 2022

The appeal was filed out of time because the appellant failed to serve the letter requesting copies of proceedings on all respondents as required by Rule 90(3), and thus could not benefit from the exclusion period. No exceptional circumstances existed to invoke the Court's revisional jurisdiction.

Citation
mohamed iqbal vs wahidi fauzi sefu 2022 tzca 376 16 june 2022
Parties
Appellant: Mohamed Iqbal; 1st Respondent: Wahidi Fauzi Sefu (Administrator of the estate of the late Abdulhamid Mustafa Sheikh); 2nd Respondent: Kondo Bakari Said Mpogoro (Administrator of the estate of the late Bakari Said Mpogoro); 3rd Respondent: Jumanne Mohamed Salum Gangamala (Administrator of the estate of the late Mohamed Salum Gangamala)
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
16 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
appeal struck out as time barred
Legal Topics
Time Bar, Appeal Procedure, Revisional Jurisdiction, Service of Documents
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Time Bar Appeal Procedure Revisional Jurisdiction 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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Iqbal

Appellant

Wahidi Fauzi Sefu (Administrator of the estate of the late Abdulhamid Mustafa Sheikh)

1st Respondent

Kondo Bakari Said Mpogoro (Administrator of the estate of the late Bakari Said Mpogoro)

2nd Respondent

Jumanne Mohamed Salum Gangamala (Administrator of the estate of the late Mohamed Salum Gangamala)

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is time barred for failure to serve the letter requesting copies of proceedings on all respondents as required by Rule 90(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Court can exercise its revisional power under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act in a time barred appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was filed out of time because the appellant failed to serve the letter requesting copies of proceedings on all respondents as required by Rule 90(3), and thus could not benefit from the exclusion period. No exceptional circumstances existed to invoke the Court's revisional jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as time barred

Orders

  • Appeal struck out with costs