shabbir gulamabbambas nathani vs sajjad ibrahim dharamsi and another 2021 tzhc 7611 10 december 2021

shabbir gulamabbambas nathani vs sajjad ibrahim dharamsi and another 2021 tzhc 7611 10 december 2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for extension of time, as technical delay doctrine did not apply to voluntary withdrawal, the delay was not properly accounted for, and neither illegality nor a serious point of law was apparent on the face of the record. Negligence and ignorance of law by the applicant's advocate do not constitute good cause for extension.

Citation
shabbir gulamabbambas nathani vs sajjad ibrahim dharamsi and another 2021 tzhc 7611 10 december 2021
Parties
Applicant: Shabbir Gulamabbambas Nathani; 1st Respondent: Sajjad Ibrahim Dharamsi; 2nd Respondent: Ally Jawad Gulamabambbas Jivraj
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Child Custody, Best Interest of the Child, Technical Delay, Illegality as Ground for Extension
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Child Custody Best Interest of the Child Technical Delay 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shabbir Gulamabbambas Nathani

Applicant

Sajjad Ibrahim Dharamsi

1st Respondent

Ally Jawad Gulamabambbas Jivraj

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether technical delay applies where an appeal is withdrawn rather than struck out
  3. 3 Whether alleged illegality or serious point of law exists in the impugned decision

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for extension of time, as technical delay doctrine did not apply to voluntary withdrawal, the delay was not properly accounted for, and neither illegality nor a serious point of law was apparent on the face of the record. Negligence and ignorance of law by the applicant's advocate do not constitute good cause for extension.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.