ahmed mohamed suud another vs mohamed suud others 2022 tzca 199 21 april 2022

ahmed mohamed suud another vs mohamed suud others 2022 tzca 199 21 april 2022

The application was not properly lodged within the prescribed sixty-day period because it was only endorsed by the Registrar and the requisite fee paid on 23rd January 2019, which was outside the limitation period. Receipt by a non-Registrar officer without payment of fees does not constitute valid lodgment under the Rules.

Citation
ahmed mohamed suud another vs mohamed suud others 2022 tzca 199 21 april 2022
Parties
1st Applicant: Ahmed Mohamed Suud; 2nd Applicant: Hussein Salum Suud; 1st Respondent: Mohamed Suud; 2nd Respondent: Ibrahim Salum Suud; 3rd Respondent: The Board of Directors Dr. Livingstone Memorial
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
21 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Time Barred Filing
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time.
Legal Topics
Revision Applications, Limitation Period, Lodgment of Court Documents, Estate Administration, Sale of Estate Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Revision Applications Limitation Period Lodgment of Court Documents Estate Administration Sale of Estate Property

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

Parties

Ahmed Mohamed Suud

1st Applicant

Hussein Salum Suud

2nd Applicant

Mohamed Suud

1st Respondent

Ibrahim Salum Suud

2nd Respondent

The Board of Directors Dr. Livingstone Memorial

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Time Barred Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision was lodged within the prescribed time under Rule 65(4) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
  2. 2 Whether the date of receipt by a non-Registrar officer constitutes proper lodgment under the Rules
  3. 3 Whether payment of requisite fees is necessary for valid lodgment

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not properly lodged within the prescribed sixty-day period because it was only endorsed by the Registrar and the requisite fee paid on 23rd January 2019, which was outside the limitation period. Receipt by a non-Registrar officer without payment of fees does not constitute valid lodgment under the Rules.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time.

Orders

  • Application struck out with no order as to costs.