mohamed salmin vs jumanne omary mapesa 2016 tzca 650 10 march 2016

mohamed salmin vs jumanne omary mapesa 2016 tzca 650 10 march 2016

The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or provide evidence justifying waiver of the written submissions requirement. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion under Rule 106(19) and struck out the application under Rule 106(9) for non-compliance with Rule 106(1).

Citation
mohamed salmin vs jumanne omary mapesa 2016 tzca 650 10 march 2016
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Salmini; Respondent: Jumanne Omary Mapesa
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application struck out
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Written Submissions, Court Discretion, Appellate Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Written Submissions Court Discretion Appellate Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Salmini

Applicant

Jumanne Omary Mapesa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify waiver of written submissions requirement under Rule 106(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time should be granted despite non-compliance with procedural requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or provide evidence justifying waiver of the written submissions requirement. Consequently, the court declined to exercise its discretion under Rule 106(19) and struck out the application under Rule 106(9) for non-compliance with Rule 106(1).

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • Application struck out under Rule 106(9) for failure to comply with Rule 106(1)
  • Costs awarded to the respondent