safi msafiri mtumbi mama simba vs evans frank 2 others 2022 tzhclandd 344 31 may 2022

safi msafiri mtumbi mama simba vs evans frank 2 others 2022 tzhclandd 344 31 may 2022

The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay and did not account for each day of the delay. Negligence of the advocate is not a sufficient ground for extension of time. Therefore, the application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.

Citation
safi msafiri mtumbi mama simba vs evans frank 2 others 2022 tzhclandd 344 31 may 2022
Parties
Applicant: Safi Msafiri Mtumbi @ Mama Simba; 1st Respondent: Evans Frank; 2nd Respondent: Hamis Kassimu Ramadhani; 3rd Respondent: Ramadhani Kassimu Yusufu
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Set Aside Dismissal Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Setting Aside Dismissal Order, Good Cause Requirement, Advocate Negligence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Setting Aside Dismissal Order Good Cause Requirement Advocate Negligence

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

Parties

Safi Msafiri Mtumbi @ Mama Simba

Applicant

Evans Frank

1st Respondent

Hamis Kassimu Ramadhani

2nd Respondent

Ramadhani Kassimu Yusufu

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Set Aside Dismissal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to set aside the dismissal order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has accounted for each day of delay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay and did not account for each day of the delay. Negligence of the advocate is not a sufficient ground for extension of time. Therefore, the application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs