seleman said mmaka vs mohamed nassoro 4 others 2022 tzhclandd 357 30 may 2022

seleman said mmaka vs mohamed nassoro 4 others 2022 tzhclandd 357 30 may 2022

The applicant failed to account for every day of delay and did not demonstrate sufficient cause for extension of time. The alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record and would require long drawn arguments, thus not qualifying as a ground for extension.

Citation
seleman said mmaka vs mohamed nassoro 4 others 2022 tzhclandd 357 30 may 2022
Parties
Applicant: Selemani Said Mmaka; 1st Respondent: Mohamed Nassoro; 2nd Respondent: Hamisi Hatibu Rashid; 3rd Respondent: Mateso Saidi; 4th Respondent: Zubeda Hashim Njenje; 5th Respondent: Flamingo Auction Mart
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Sufficient Cause, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Sufficient Cause Illegality as Ground for Extension

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Selemani Said Mmaka

Applicant

Mohamed Nassoro

1st Respondent

Hamisi Hatibu Rashid

2nd Respondent

Mateso Saidi

3rd Respondent

Zubeda Hashim Njenje

4th Respondent

Flamingo Auction Mart

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether alleged illegalities in the High Court judgment justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to account for every day of delay and did not demonstrate sufficient cause for extension of time. The alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record and would require long drawn arguments, thus not qualifying as a ground for extension.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed
  • Applicant to pay costs