19890627 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The court found that the applicant's advocate was negligent and that such negligence does not constitute good and sufficient reason to warrant extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19890627 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Applicant: Registrar of Buildings; Respondent: AFI Limited
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 1989
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Ex Parte Decree, Negligence of Advocate
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Registrar of Buildings
Applicant
AFI Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Memorandum of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown good and sufficient reason for extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal against an ex parte decree
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's advocate was negligent and that such negligence does not constitute good and sufficient reason to warrant extension of time to file a memorandum of appeal.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application for extension of time to file memorandum of appeal is dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
If.THE HIGHC C~URT OF. TANZA~IA ,J1/. ,, • AT itAR E, tALA.AM TI Iv l\U5.fELLANE"\US itIVIL CAUSE No_. i" -.tF i~88 REGISTRAR OF BUILDINGS • ~: ... . . . APPLICANT versu.lil AFI LIMITE:t . . . . . . . • • • • • • RESPONDENT _....,.. R U______________ L N _ i G: RUBMlli.Lt._ J !. Due to the non appearance of the applicant's advocate on the day set for the hearing of the su:i t, the trial. court allo,·red 1. the respondent to prove its case ex-parte by affidavit as well. as dismissed the applicant's counter claim. On proof of the · 1 case by the respondent judgment i-ias entered again::;t the applicznt .. The applicant is now asking this court f'or perrniasion to file a memorandum o'f: a::_-::;?02.l. out of' tir.10 against the o-~tainod ex parte decree by thG respondent::. l1n affidavit in support of' the· application has bee:;:,, filed. l'l. count0r af'fida.vi t co:ntro.dicting that by. thG then ap::_:.licant I o advocate has been filed by tho respondent's advoc:2-tG outlining ;;-rhat had l~.d to tl~.e order in favour of th0 ros::,)ond.ent to :9rovG its c"ase ox parto by affidavit. Reviewing the a21'idavi t by the cpplicant I s c,dvocate t:16:.1. in charge o:f tho cas0 and tho counter affidavit by tho advocate for the respondent i t is cioar that the advocate for the a~plicoct was distorting facto. The counter affidavit's version of tho events which is oupportod by t:,.c record· of t:i.1.0 District· Cou:;:--t I s record shows that tho applicant'a advocate was aware of tho hearing da to but absented l1.i1:iself. In;:,:t02d of 11.ir::; coming out clean, he docidod to toll lioo th2t he had gone to court but for some roaso~ the case was not heard on tho ~ontioned date and he had no~.; beon informed officially of whc t had hcp~cnocl until very la -ce, thus tic.is ap:,_:)lica tion :for oxto::.1.tio:.1. of' ·;;imc to file a memorandum of.' ap;>eal. • •••• /2. 2 ... Nogligonco on tl:o p2,rt of tho a.ppliccmt' s ndvocato which has cloerly b0on ostnblishod in this cnsc 1 id no good Qnd sufficient rec.son to wn.:brant, this court to grc.nt tho c.pplic.s tion. Accordingly tho applic2tion. for· cxtc,mti'on of ti,·,10 to file mor.10rrandum of ap:i_Je.::tl is hereby disi:1issed with costs. JUDGE 27/6/1989 Coramg Rubamc., J. Mr. Rnithatha/l\1r. I-12..jcthia. for. rcspondo11.t T.L.c. for applicant. Ruling delivered.