20021010 TZHC Mbeya 1
The appeal was filed twenty-eight days out of time and is therefore time-barred; the court cannot consider the merits of an appeal that is not legally sustainable due to limitation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20021010 TZHC Mbeya 1
- Parties
- Appellant: Rupone Mwasiposya; Respondent: Tuntufye Mwasiposya
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court)
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Distribution of Matrimonial Assets, Limitation Period, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rupone Mwasiposya
Appellant
Tuntufye Mwasiposya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed limitation period
- 2 Whether the High Court can consider the merits of a time-barred appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was filed twenty-eight days out of time and is therefore time-barred; the court cannot consider the merits of an appeal that is not legally sustainable due to limitation.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
~·M~ IN THE ;:rIGH CO.URT OF Tf:1NZ/FIA (From tho decision of the District Ceurt ,jf Jilh:-1r.::li Civil ..'.i)peel No.8 of 2001 2.nd Rujewa Primer;/ C:)urt Civil C,_:so 1-L),. 9 Jf 2001) VERSUS JUDGL:ENT The litigants. were n married couple, .\vi. th .effect frmi.1 5th October, 1969~ ll'Iisundorstnndin.::rs ~-u cro )ned 1 J.: .l; • u-;J - short.:.y c:ftor the marriage and the mnrri.c,.30 ·went on the rocks. It was fin:::illy dissolved by the Rujewa J?rimery C::mrt which held that the mnrrinGe h3d irr~pearr~bly broken dovm.. The . trial coart cli.d not m,::ke any order regard.inc~ the dtistri buti o:n of m~trir..1G.ri..in,l .s,sse ts. by Thct was done;the 11br:rc..li District Court in its sit1t1lete jurisdi ction6 In the first ap:pe:?.l the :::qypsllant v:as '.rupone Mw:Jsiposye and the res~)'Jnclent was Tuntufye rfl:wasiposia.. Tuntufye r,:;vmsiposya was aggrievod 7 hel'1ce this aprioal. The judg1:1ent from vv11.ich it is appe6led was delivered on 11th SGl)tOrnber; 2001 1 and thG re cord shows th:i,t right of 2:Jp8[~l wBs cx1Jl;::ined to the partio s. Section 25(1) (b) of the Hcc;iatrc.tes Courts .Act~ 1984, provides that if ac;gricved by the do cision or order of a district co1,fft in the exercise of its nppcllc.to jurisdictinn; any party - 2 may, within thirty days 8fter the of the clGcision or order, appeal -~ 1erefrom to the High Court. 0 Since the f i.rst appe 113.tG de ci si on was c1e livered on 11th Soptember, 2001, the :;ipr3llantr s tii.i10 within which to i\P:Peal c:ccruecl on 12th on 9th Octcber, 2001 in terms of Exche q_uor Receipt Vm.rnher No. 13261887" Th3t was _the s:::me d3y on which the petition of efipeal was present3d for filin-:_i;.· Simple ari tl11-netical com:;;Ju·cz:ti,)n shows thce;t tho a;·_;:ie,11 was fiL,d twGnty-eight dD,ys out of t.i.1T,c. Clearly the sppeal .·.s thus time-barred. I will, as a resul+,r no·t consider · tho GGri t:::, r)f the appc,::.~l bG cause the 8})1Jeal the way it is not sustttinc:bl:) in law. 1\ccor l.{ngly the c._prcal is dismissedo There shall be no orclor as :- ) costs. sgd: J. I·~$ I:}ACKANJA JUDGE ,· 10/10/2002 2?L10/2co? Oornr:1: s .. /," Lila, DR For ~4p:pa L.sn t: r!Ir. ElJi se ~ Ad vo ca te For Re spoJ'_dent: Absent C/C~ S. Kasubiri O!-::_cl.9.£: J;_·-::'gment · deli v0red. today in the l)resence of ls,:.:rncd Mbise e.C.vocate for the n1:pellant and in the absence of the Rf Sl')Ondent. se;d;; S.A. Lila 9 DR 22/10/2002 Cert.i. cied true copy. of the