usanga general traders vs kagera tea company 2013 tzhccomd 4 18 february 2013

usanga general traders vs kagera tea company 2013 tzhccomd 4 18 february 2013

No sufficient or reasonable cause was shown for the delay of over five months in filing the application. The supporting affidavit did not explain the delay. The applicant failed to act diligently, and the reasons advanced were found to be flimsy and without merit. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
usanga general traders vs kagera tea company 2013 tzhccomd 4 18 february 2013
Parties
Plaintiff: Usangu General Traders; Defendant: Kagera Tea Company
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
18 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Restitution, Limitation of Actions, Court's Discretion, Diligence in Litigation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Extension of Time Restitution Limitation of Actions Court's Discretion Diligence in Litigation

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Usangu General Traders

Plaintiff

Kagera Tea Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause was shown to warrant extension of time to file a fresh application for restitution of excess money paid in satisfaction of a decree.

Ratio Decidendi

No sufficient or reasonable cause was shown for the delay of over five months in filing the application. The supporting affidavit did not explain the delay. The applicant failed to act diligently, and the reasons advanced were found to be flimsy and without merit. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • application for extension of time dismissed
  • costs awarded to respondent