said ramadhan vs geita gold mining 2014 tzhc 2275 25 july 2014

said ramadhan vs geita gold mining 2014 tzhc 2275 25 july 2014

The applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds constituting good cause for the delay, particularly for the period between the last struck out application and the current filing. The delay was due to lack of diligence and repeated procedural errors, which are inexcusable, especially as the applicant was represented.

Citation
said ramadhan vs geita gold mining 2014 tzhc 2275 25 july 2014
Parties
Applicant: Said Ramadhain; Respondent: Geita Gold Mining
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Misc. Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision of CMA Award, Good Cause for Delay
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Revision of CMA Award Good Cause for Delay

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 1 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Said Ramadhain

Applicant

Geita Gold Mining

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Misc. Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to file an application for revision of the CMA award

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds constituting good cause for the delay, particularly for the period between the last struck out application and the current filing. The delay was due to lack of diligence and repeated procedural errors, which are inexcusable, especially as the applicant was represented.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is refused