LAND REVISION NO

LAND REVISION NO

The application for revision was filed out of the prescribed limitation period of 60 days from the date of the consent judgment. The Law of Limitation Act mandates dismissal of matters filed out of time. The applicant's remedy was to appeal the dismissal of his application to set aside the ex-parte order, not to file a revision out of time.

Citation
LAND REVISION NO
Parties
Applicant: Rogasian Mark Silayo; 1st Respondent: Furqence Kavishe Ngaita; 2nd Respondent: Maendeleo Bank PLC
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Land Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
Outcome
Application dismissed for being time-barred.
Legal Topics
Revision, Limitation of Actions, Ex Parte Proceedings, Consent Judgment, Execution of Decree
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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rogasian Mark Silayo

Applicant

Furqence Kavishe Ngaita

1st Respondent

Maendeleo Bank PLC

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision

  1. 1 Whether the application for revision is competent before the court given the time limitation
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard in the original tribunal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application for revision was filed out of the prescribed limitation period of 60 days from the date of the consent judgment. The Law of Limitation Act mandates dismissal of matters filed out of time. The applicant's remedy was to appeal the dismissal of his application to set aside the ex-parte order, not to file a revision out of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for being time-barred.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for being filed out of the prescribed period.