sera joel kabigi vs andrew francis kambona 3 others 2023 tzhclandd 16506 31 may 2023

sera joel kabigi vs andrew francis kambona 3 others 2023 tzhclandd 16506 31 may 2023

Applicant failed to account for 1,873 days of delay and did not establish sufficient cause or any point of law of sufficient importance; alleged illegality was not substantiated. Court's discretion not exercised in applicant's favour.

Citation
sera joel kabigi vs andrew francis kambona 3 others 2023 tzhclandd 16506 31 may 2023
Parties
Applicant: Sera Joel Kabigi; 1st Respondent: Andrew Francis Kambona; 2nd Respondent: Agnes Kabigi Mkende; 3rd Respondent: Dorica Kabigi; 4th Respondent: Jacob Kabigi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed for want of merit
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Limitation, Sufficient Cause, Illegality
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Revision Limitation Sufficient Cause Illegality

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sera Joel Kabigi

Applicant

Andrew Francis Kambona

1st Respondent

Agnes Kabigi Mkende

2nd Respondent

Dorica Kabigi

3rd Respondent

Jacob Kabigi

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause for extension of time to file revision against Land Application No. 398 of 2016
  2. 2 Whether the delay was accounted for
  3. 3 Whether alleged illegality constitutes sufficient cause for extension

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to account for 1,873 days of delay and did not establish sufficient cause or any point of law of sufficient importance; alleged illegality was not substantiated. Court's discretion not exercised in applicant's favour.

Court Disposition

application dismissed for want of merit

Orders

  • parties shall bear their own respective costs