sabina masalu mhalagani vs julius masalu 4 others 2022 tzhc 15205 16 december 2022

sabina masalu mhalagani vs julius masalu 4 others 2022 tzhc 15205 16 december 2022

The applicant failed to account for every day of delay as required by law. The delay was actual, not technical, since the appeal was struck out for being time-barred. Submissions made by counsel were not supported by affidavit evidence. Therefore, the applicant did not establish sufficient cause for extension of time.

Citation
sabina masalu mhalagani vs julius masalu 4 others 2022 tzhc 15205 16 december 2022
Parties
Applicant: Sabina Masalu Mhalagani; 1st Respondent: Julius Masalu; 2nd Respondent: Monica Masalu; 3rd Respondent: Juliana Masalu; 4th Respondent: Mayunga Christopher; 5th Respondent: Aloyce Masalu
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Probate and Administration, Appeals, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Probate and Administration Appeals Limitation of Actions

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabina Masalu Mhalagani

Applicant

Julius Masalu

1st Respondent

Monica Masalu

2nd Respondent

Juliana Masalu

3rd Respondent

Mayunga Christopher

4th Respondent

Aloyce Masalu

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the delay was technical or actual and if it was properly accounted for

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for every day of delay as required by law. The delay was actual, not technical, since the appeal was struck out for being time-barred. Submissions made by counsel were not supported by affidavit evidence. Therefore, the applicant did not establish sufficient cause for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with no order as to costs