pacific diagnostic ltd vs chibango investment co ltd others 2023 tzhclandd 16485 18 may 2023

pacific diagnostic ltd vs chibango investment co ltd others 2023 tzhclandd 16485 18 may 2023

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not provide sufficient grounds for the extension of time. The delay was inordinate and no illegality was raised. The applicant's reliance on advocate negligence was distinguished as inapplicable due to lack of diligence after discovery of the dismissal.

Citation
pacific diagnostic ltd vs chibango investment co ltd others 2023 tzhclandd 16485 18 may 2023
Parties
Applicant: Pacific Diagnostic Ltd; 1st Respondent: Chibango Investment Co. Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Yusuph Abdu Lugendo; 3rd Respondent: Iddi Hamisi Ramadhani
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Dismissal of Suit, Advocate Negligence, Good Cause for Delay
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Dismissal of Suit Advocate Negligence Good Cause for Delay

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

Parties

Pacific Diagnostic Ltd

Applicant

Chibango Investment Co. Ltd

1st Respondent

Yusuph Abdu Lugendo

2nd Respondent

Iddi Hamisi Ramadhani

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to set aside a dismissal order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has accounted for each day of delay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not provide sufficient grounds for the extension of time. The delay was inordinate and no illegality was raised. The applicant's reliance on advocate negligence was distinguished as inapplicable due to lack of diligence after discovery of the dismissal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs