zamana ally mama bushiri vs said omary 2020 tzhclandd 2283 7 september 2020

zamana ally mama bushiri vs said omary 2020 tzhclandd 2283 7 september 2020

The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay as the negligence was attributable to her former advocate, not herself, and she took prompt action upon discovering the issue. Therefore, the delay should not be held against her and extension of time is warranted.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
zamana ally mama bushiri vs said omary 2020 tzhclandd 2283 7 september 2020
Parties
Applicant: Zamana Ally (Mama Bushiri); 1st Respondent: Omary Chipanta; 2nd Respondent: Juma Bin Juma; 3rd Respondent: Ally Lugome; 4th Respondent: Serikali ya Kddi Vianzi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Advocate Negligence, Delay Condonation
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Advocate Negligence Delay Condonation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zamana Ally (Mama Bushiri)

Applicant

Omary Chipanta

1st Respondent

Juma Bin Juma

2nd Respondent

Ally Lugome

3rd Respondent

Serikali ya Kddi Vianzi

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for delay to warrant extension of time to file an appeal
  2. 2 Whether negligence of the applicant's advocate constitutes sufficient cause for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay as the negligence was attributable to her former advocate, not herself, and she took prompt action upon discovering the issue. Therefore, the delay should not be held against her and extension of time is warranted.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for the applicant to file her intended appeal within forty five (45) days from the date of this ruling
  • Costs shall follow cause in the intended application