vijay shantilal chohan vs abdul shakule halday another 2019 tzca 551 15 july 2019

vijay shantilal chohan vs abdul shakule halday another 2019 tzca 551 15 july 2019

The applicant failed to advance any grounds accounting for the delay in lodging the notice of intention to appeal within the prescribed period. The Court cannot exercise its discretion to extend time in the absence of sufficient cause.

Citation
vijay shantilal chohan vs abdul shakule halday another 2019 tzca 551 15 july 2019
Parties
Applicant: Vijay Shantilal Chohan; 1st Respondent: Abdul Shakule Halday; 2nd Respondent: Ilala Municipal Council
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Right to Be Heard, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Right to Be Heard Preliminary Objection

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Shantilal Chohan

Applicant

Abdul Shakule Halday

1st Respondent

Ilala Municipal Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal is competent
  2. 2 Whether sufficient cause was advanced to account for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard on issues raised suo motu by the High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to advance any grounds accounting for the delay in lodging the notice of intention to appeal within the prescribed period. The Court cannot exercise its discretion to extend time in the absence of sufficient cause.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • application for extension of time refused
  • respondents awarded costs