rashid abiki nguwa vs ramadhani hassan kuteya another 2021 tzca 604 21 october 2021

rashid abiki nguwa vs ramadhani hassan kuteya another 2021 tzca 604 21 october 2021

The applicant demonstrated good cause for the delay, as the failure to serve the 2nd respondent was due to human error rather than negligence, and the application for extension was filed promptly upon discovery of the omission. The previous days before discovery were not relevant for accounting for delay. The interests of substantive justice warranted granting the extension.

Citation
rashid abiki nguwa vs ramadhani hassan kuteya another 2021 tzca 604 21 october 2021
Parties
Applicant: Rashidi Abiki Nguwa; 1st Respondent: Ramadhan Hassan Kuteya; 2nd Respondent: National Microfinance PLC
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Notice of Appeal, Good Cause for Delay, Mortgage and Loan Default
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Extension of Time Service of Notice of Appeal Good Cause for Delay Mortgage and Loan Default

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

Parties

Rashidi Abiki Nguwa

Applicant

Ramadhan Hassan Kuteya

1st Respondent

National Microfinance PLC

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to serve the 2nd respondent with a notice of appeal out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated good cause for the delay, as the failure to serve the 2nd respondent was due to human error rather than negligence, and the application for extension was filed promptly upon discovery of the omission. The previous days before discovery were not relevant for accounting for delay. The interests of substantive justice warranted granting the extension.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Extension of time granted to the applicant to serve the 2nd respondent with the notice of appeal within five days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs to be in the cause.