solo jumanne yamlinga others vs msafiri jumanne mashaka 2022 tzca 808 8 december 2022

solo jumanne yamlinga others vs msafiri jumanne mashaka 2022 tzca 808 8 december 2022

The application was filed seventy-five days after the High Court's refusal, far beyond the fourteen-day limitation period prescribed by rule 45A (1) (c) of the Rules. As the application was time barred, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it and accordingly struck it out with costs.

Citation
solo jumanne yamlinga others vs msafiri jumanne mashaka 2022 tzca 808 8 december 2022
Parties
1st Applicant: Sololo Jumanne Yamlinga, as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Jumanne Yamlinga; 2nd Applicant: Alfred Jumanne Yamlinga; 3rd Applicant: Bulugu Jumanne Yamlinga; 4th Applicant: Maria Jumanne Yamlinga; 5th Applicant: Prisca Jumanne Yamlinga; Respondent: Msafiri Jumanne Mashaka
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Second Bite Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application struck out with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Limitation Period, Jurisdiction, Probate Sale, Second Bite Application
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Probate and Administration Extension of Time Limitation Period Jurisdiction Probate Sale Second Bite Application

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

Parties

Sololo Jumanne Yamlinga, as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Jumanne Yamlinga

1st Applicant

Alfred Jumanne Yamlinga

2nd Applicant

Bulugu Jumanne Yamlinga

3rd Applicant

Maria Jumanne Yamlinga

4th Applicant

Prisca Jumanne Yamlinga

5th Applicant

Msafiri Jumanne Mashaka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Second Bite Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time was filed within the prescribed limitation period under rule 45A (1) (c) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2019
  2. 2 Whether the application should be dismissed or struck out for being time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The application was filed seventy-five days after the High Court's refusal, far beyond the fourteen-day limitation period prescribed by rule 45A (1) (c) of the Rules. As the application was time barred, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it and accordingly struck it out with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application is struck out for being time barred
  • Costs awarded to the respondent