Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Despite the general rule that advocate negligence and financial constraints are not sufficient grounds for extension of time, the court exercised discretion in light of the circumstances, including the emotive nature of land disputes and the applicant being a victim of her advocate's conduct, and granted the extension to allow the matter to be heard on its merits.
Source excerpt
The High Court allowed an appeal, set aside an ex parte ruling, and ordered a retrial inter partes after finding the appellant should not suffer for his advocate’s personal negligence.
The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for setting aside the dismissal order as he did not show any diligent efforts to follow up on his case or mitigate his advocate's negligence. Mere advocate negligence, without exceptional circumstances or party diligence, does not justify re-admission of a dismissed appeal.
Source excerpt
The High Court refused to extend time to challenge an ex parte order, holding that the applicant failed to account for the delay and lacked diligence.
The High Court dismissed Netis Tanzania Limited’s bid to extend time to challenge an ex parte order, finding the delay unexplained and insufficiently diligent.
The High Court dismissed an application to extend time to file a notice of appeal, finding the applicant failed to account for 41 days of delay.
The applicant failed to account for each day of the delay, did not provide evidence of requesting or receiving the judgment, and relied solely on advocate's negligence without substantiating it. The court found no sufficient cause to exercise discretion to extend time.
Source excerpt
The application was not time barred as the date of payment is deemed the date of filing, but the applicant failed to show sufficient cause to set aside the default judgment because the advocate's absence due to alcoholism does not excuse the applicant's own inaction in pursuing the case or engaging another advocate.
Source excerpt
The defendant was not to blame for the delay as a corporate body relying on counsel; extension of time is granted in the interest of justice, considering the case is at an early stage and the delay resulted from counsel's negligence.
Source excerpt
The High Court granted an extension of time for the applicant to seek leave to appeal, relying on advocate negligence and alleged illegality, despite weak proof of sickness.
Explore more
