tanzania harbours authority vs mohamed r mohamed 2001 tzca 19 6 april 2001

tanzania harbours authority vs mohamed r mohamed 2001 tzca 19 6 april 2001

The court held that, following the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1(2), the court's discretion to extend time for filing a written statement of defence is limited to applications made within 21 days of expiry of the prescribed period. The appellant's delay of about 187 days was inordinate and not excusable. The appeal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
tanzania harbours authority vs mohamed r mohamed 2001 tzca 19 6 april 2001
Parties
Appellant: Tanzania Harbours Authority; Respondent: Mohamed S. Mohamed
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
6 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Written Statement of Defence, Retrospective Application, Court Discretion
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Written Statement of Defence Retrospective Application Court Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tanzania Harbours Authority

Appellant

Mohamed S. Mohamed

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant extension of time to file a written statement of defence retrospectively after expiry of 21 days under Order VIII Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Code as amended
  2. 2 Whether section 53 of the Civil Procedure Code allows unrestricted extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the amendment to Order VIII Rule 1(2), the court's discretion to extend time for filing a written statement of defence is limited to applications made within 21 days of expiry of the prescribed period. The appellant's delay of about 187 days was inordinate and not excusable. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.