tanzania breweries limited vs the minster for labour 7 youth development others 2022 tzca 806 8 december 2022

tanzania breweries limited vs the minster for labour 7 youth development others 2022 tzca 806 8 december 2022

The applicant demonstrated sufficient reasons for the delay in serving the 3rd respondent, supported by affidavits and unopposed by the respondents, thus satisfying the requirements for extension of time under Rule 10.

Citation
tanzania breweries limited vs the minster for labour 7 youth development others 2022 tzca 806 8 december 2022
Parties
Applicant: Tanzania Breweries Limited; 1st Respondent: The Minister for Labour and Youth Development; 2nd Respondent: The Attorney General; 3rd Respondent: Pendo Masasi
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Serve 3rd Respondent With Copy of Application for Review
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Service of Process, Court Discretion
Source Language
English

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

Tanzania Breweries Limited

Applicant

The Minister for Labour and Youth Development

1st Respondent

The Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Pendo Masasi

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Serve 3rd Respondent With Copy of Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for extension of time to serve the 3rd respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated sufficient reasons for the delay in serving the 3rd respondent, supported by affidavits and unopposed by the respondents, thus satisfying the requirements for extension of time under Rule 10.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Extension of time to serve the 3rd respondent with the application for review is granted
  • No order as to costs