nahla development ltd vs anseline amiri mrisho 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 6843 22 december 2021

nahla development ltd vs anseline amiri mrisho 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 6843 22 december 2021

The applicant failed to account for each day of the 120-day delay in filing the bill of costs, which is a mandatory requirement for extension of time. The reasons advanced were insufficient to justify the inordinate delay.

Citation
nahla development ltd vs anseline amiri mrisho 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 6843 22 december 2021
Parties
Applicant: Nahla Development Ltd; 1st Respondent: Anseline Amiri Mrisho; 2nd Respondent: Amina Amiri Mrisho; 3rd Respondent: Sophiaa Amiri Mrisho; 4th Respondent: Abdallah H. Abeid t/a Tambaza Auction Mart and General Broker
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Bill of Costs, Limitation Period
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Bill of Costs Limitation Period

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

Parties

Nahla Development Ltd

Applicant

Anseline Amiri Mrisho

1st Respondent

Amina Amiri Mrisho

2nd Respondent

Sophiaa Amiri Mrisho

3rd Respondent

Abdallah H. Abeid t/a Tambaza Auction Mart and General Broker

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file a bill of costs out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of the 120-day delay in filing the bill of costs, which is a mandatory requirement for extension of time. The reasons advanced were insufficient to justify the inordinate delay.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed with costs