sabena techincs dar limited vs michael j luwunzu 2021 tzca 108 14 april 2021

sabena techincs dar limited vs michael j luwunzu 2021 tzca 108 14 april 2021

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence for the delay, as the supporting affidavit was hearsay without corroborating affidavits from the directors or relevant counsel. The alleged illegality was not in the impugned decision and could not be rectified by granting the extension sought. Therefore, no good cause was shown for extension of time.

Citation
sabena techincs dar limited vs michael j luwunzu 2021 tzca 108 14 april 2021
Parties
Applicant: Sabena Technics Dar Limited; Respondent: Michael J. Luwunzu
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Extension of Time / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Written Submissions in Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2020
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Evidence, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Written Submissions, Employer Employee Dispute
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Labour Law Extension of Time Affidavit Evidence Illegality as Ground for Extension Written Submissions Employer Employee Dispute

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabena Technics Dar Limited

Applicant

Michael J. Luwunzu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Extension of Time / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Written Submissions in Civil Appeal No. 246 of 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to file written submissions
  2. 2 Whether hearsay in affidavits can support an application for extension of time
  3. 3 Whether alleged illegality in the underlying decision can justify extension of time in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence for the delay, as the supporting affidavit was hearsay without corroborating affidavits from the directors or relevant counsel. The alleged illegality was not in the impugned decision and could not be rectified by granting the extension sought. Therefore, no good cause was shown for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to file written submissions is refused
  • No order as to costs