sued jafari mchoima administrator of the estate of the late jafari selemani mchoima vs asha abdallah 2022 tzhclandd 463 27 april 2022

sued jafari mchoima administrator of the estate of the late jafari selemani mchoima vs asha abdallah 2022 tzhclandd 463 27 april 2022

Applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not establish sufficient cause. Grounds for revision were weak and no chances of success were demonstrated. Delay was inordinate and provisions for exclusion of time did not apply. Application dismissed for lack of merit.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
sued jafari mchoima administrator of the estate of the late jafari selemani mchoima vs asha abdallah 2022 tzhclandd 463 27 april 2022
Parties
Applicant: Sued Jafari Mchoima; Respondent: Asha Abdallah
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Revision, Limitation of Actions, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Revision Limitation of Actions Procedural Compliance

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sued Jafari Mchoima

Applicant

Asha Abdallah

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause exists for extension of time to file revision
  2. 2 Whether applicant properly accounted for each day of delay
  3. 3 Whether alleged illegality justifies extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not establish sufficient cause. Grounds for revision were weak and no chances of success were demonstrated. Delay was inordinate and provisions for exclusion of time did not apply. Application dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application dismissed
  • costs awarded to respondent