sauda maalim laurent vs sharifa aloyce mshana 5 others 2022 tzhclandd 12563 10 november 2022

sauda maalim laurent vs sharifa aloyce mshana 5 others 2022 tzhclandd 12563 10 november 2022

The application is time barred because it was filed more than 60 days after the attachment order, and time runs from the date of the order, not from the date the applicant became aware. The applicant should have sought extension of time if unaware of the order.

Citation
sauda maalim laurent vs sharifa aloyce mshana 5 others 2022 tzhclandd 12563 10 november 2022
Parties
Applicant: Sauda Maalim Laurent; 1st Respondent: Sharifa Aloyce Mshana; 2nd Respondent: Exim Bank Tanzania Limited; 3rd Respondent: Mabrouk Omar Mohamed; 4th Respondent: Kishe Auction Mart Co. Ltd; 5th Respondent: Fosters and Company Limited; 6th Respondent: Fabian John Fimbo
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application dismissed for being time barred with costs.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Objection Proceedings, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Limitation of Actions Objection Proceedings Execution of Decrees

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sauda Maalim Laurent

Applicant

Sharifa Aloyce Mshana

1st Respondent

Exim Bank Tanzania Limited

2nd Respondent

Mabrouk Omar Mohamed

3rd Respondent

Kishe Auction Mart Co. Ltd

4th Respondent

Fosters and Company Limited

5th Respondent

Fabian John Fimbo

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for objection proceedings is time barred
  2. 2 Whether time for filing objection proceedings runs from the date of knowledge or the date of the order

Ratio Decidendi

The application is time barred because it was filed more than 60 days after the attachment order, and time runs from the date of the order, not from the date the applicant became aware. The applicant should have sought extension of time if unaware of the order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for being time barred with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for being time barred under Section 3 of the Law of Limitation Act.
  • Applicant to pay costs.