moto matiko mabanga vs ophir energy plc others 2019 tzca 135 12 april 2019

moto matiko mabanga vs ophir energy plc others 2019 tzca 135 12 april 2019

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record. The order sought to be revised was interlocutory and not subject to revision. Therefore, no good cause was shown for extension of time.

Citation
moto matiko mabanga vs ophir energy plc others 2019 tzca 135 12 april 2019
Parties
Applicant: Moto Matiko Mabanga; 1st Respondent: Ophir Energy PLC; 2nd Respondent: Ophir Services Pty Ltd; 3rd Respondent: British Gas Tanzania Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Interlocutory Orders, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Revision Interlocutory Orders Illegality as Ground for Extension

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

Parties

Moto Matiko Mabanga

Applicant

Ophir Energy PLC

1st Respondent

Ophir Services Pty Ltd

2nd Respondent

British Gas Tanzania Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to file an application for revision
  2. 2 Whether the alleged illegality constitutes good cause for extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the order sought to be revised is interlocutory and not subject to revision

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record. The order sought to be revised was interlocutory and not subject to revision. Therefore, no good cause was shown for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed with costs