octavian mbungani ex e 8648 cpl versus inspector general of police and the attorney general 2021 tzhc 9378 14 december 2021

octavian mbungani ex e 8648 cpl versus inspector general of police and the attorney general 2021 tzhc 9378 14 december 2021

The applicant failed to advance sufficient reason for the delay, failed to account for each day of delay, and the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record. The applicant was afforded the right to be heard, and the evidence was sufficient even without the video. Therefore, the application for extension of time is dismissed.

Citation
octavian mbungani ex e 8648 cpl versus inspector general of police and the attorney general 2021 tzhc 9378 14 december 2021
Parties
Applicant: Octavian Mbungani (Ex. E 8648 CPL); 1st Respondent: Inspector General of Police; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Judicial Review
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Limitation of Actions, Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Judicial Review Limitation of Actions Natural Justice Right to Be Heard

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Octavian Mbungani (Ex. E 8648 CPL)

Applicant

Inspector General of Police

1st Respondent

Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has advanced sufficient reason for the delay to warrant extension of time to file an application for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to advance sufficient reason for the delay, failed to account for each day of delay, and the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record. The applicant was afforded the right to be heard, and the evidence was sufficient even without the video. Therefore, the application for extension of time is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs