natinal microfinance bank ltd vs mwajuma hussein said 4 othetrs 2022 tzhclandd 12398 6 october 2022

natinal microfinance bank ltd vs mwajuma hussein said 4 othetrs 2022 tzhclandd 12398 6 october 2022

The applicant failed to satisfactorily account for the delay in seeking extension of time to appeal, and did not demonstrate sufficient cause or illegality on the face of the record. The counter affidavit of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents was struck out as defective, but this did not cure the applicant's failure to meet the threshold for extension of time.

Citation
natinal microfinance bank ltd vs mwajuma hussein said 4 othetrs 2022 tzhclandd 12398 6 october 2022
Parties
Applicant: National Microfinance Bank Ltd; 1st Respondent: Mwajuma Hussein Said; 2nd Respondent: Nutmeg Auctioneers & Property Managers Co. Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Fadhiri Msakuzi Mungaa; 4th Respondent: Mbegu Ally Gereza; 5th Respondent: Smart Starley Meena
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Defects, Appeals, Limitation Period
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Affidavit Defects Appeals 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Microfinance Bank Ltd

Applicant

Mwajuma Hussein Said

1st Respondent

Nutmeg Auctioneers & Property Managers Co. Ltd

2nd Respondent

Fadhiri Msakuzi Mungaa

3rd Respondent

Mbegu Ally Gereza

4th Respondent

Smart Starley Meena

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether the counter affidavit of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents is defective and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfactorily account for the delay in seeking extension of time to appeal, and did not demonstrate sufficient cause or illegality on the face of the record. The counter affidavit of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents was struck out as defective, but this did not cure the applicant's failure to meet the threshold for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Counter affidavit of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th respondents struck out as defective
  • Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs