quality group ltd vs nmb bank ltd 2023 tzhccomd 77 16 march 2023

quality group ltd vs nmb bank ltd 2023 tzhccomd 77 16 march 2023

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the alleged illegality was apparent on the face of the record, as determining the legality of the statutory notice of default would require a long-drawn-out process of examining evidence and court records, which is not permissible for extension of time based on illegality. The applicant also failed to show diligence and account for the delay.

Citation
quality group ltd vs nmb bank ltd 2023 tzhccomd 77 16 march 2023
Parties
Applicant: Quality Group Limited; Respondent: NMB Bank PLC
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Default, Appeals, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quality Group Limited

Applicant

NMB Bank PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegality in the judgment of Commercial Case No. 84 of 2018 is apparent on the record and justifies extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the alleged illegality was apparent on the face of the record, as determining the legality of the statutory notice of default would require a long-drawn-out process of examining evidence and court records, which is not permissible for extension of time based on illegality. The applicant also failed to show diligence and account for the delay.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is refused for lacking merit.
  • Respondent awarded costs.