tumbo geeorge kimery vs moses malaki sewando 4 others 2022 tzhclandd 252 27 april 2022

tumbo geeorge kimery vs moses malaki sewando 4 others 2022 tzhclandd 252 27 april 2022

The applicant established a ground of illegality of sufficient importance, namely denial of the right to be heard, which justifies extension of time to file a revision despite failure to account for each day of delay.

Citation
tumbo geeorge kimery vs moses malaki sewando 4 others 2022 tzhclandd 252 27 april 2022
Parties
Applicant: Tumbo George Kimery; 1st Respondent: Moses Malaki Sewando; 2nd Respondent: Edith Adolph; 3rd Respondent: Jen Michael Kaboge; 4th Respondent: Musa Mwinyi; 5th Respondent: Shomari Ramadhani
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Illegality as Ground for Extension, Right to Be Heard, Revision Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land Law Extension of Time Illegality as Ground for Extension Right to Be Heard Revision Proceedings

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tumbo George Kimery

Applicant

Moses Malaki Sewando

1st Respondent

Edith Adolph

2nd Respondent

Jen Michael Kaboge

3rd Respondent

Musa Mwinyi

4th Respondent

Shomari Ramadhani

5th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause has been shown to warrant extension of time to file revision
  2. 2 Whether illegality is apparent on the face of the record to justify extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a ground of illegality of sufficient importance, namely denial of the right to be heard, which justifies extension of time to file a revision despite failure to account for each day of delay.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Applicant granted leave to file revision before the court within thirty days from the date of the ruling.