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
The Court of Appeal struck out a civil appeal as time barred and defective, holding that late filing and party-name discrepancies could not be cured by overriding objectives.
The presence of two conflicting certificates of delay, neither of which validly complies with Rule 90(1)(c) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, renders the appeal incompetent and invalid in law.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal as time-barred, holding that the appellant could not rely on a certificate of delay because the request letter for proceedings was not served on the respondent.
The applicant demonstrated diligence and persistence in pursuing his right to appeal, and the delay was minimal and satisfactorily explained. The application was properly before the Court as, after the appeal was struck out, the Registrar could not issue a certificate of delay. The applicant's prompt action upon realizing the delay constituted sufficient cause for extension of time.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out a revision application as time-barred, holding that the 60-day limit in rule 65(4) was mandatory and not extended by a certificate of delay.
The applicant demonstrated good cause for extension of time due to a defective certificate of delay not attributable to the applicant and the presence of apparent illegalities in the High Court judgment. Granting extension would not prejudice the respondent and serves the overriding objective of expeditious justice.
Source excerpt
The certificate of delay dated 17th January 2024 was properly procured from the Registrar of the High Court, and only documents formally obtained from the Registrar constitute the valid record of appeal. The appeal was lodged within the statutory 60-day period from the date the complete documents were formally supplied, rendering the preliminary objections meritless.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay, as the delay was due to his own negligence in not promptly examining the certificate of delay and not following up with the Deputy Registrar. Grounds not pleaded in the notice of motion or affidavit cannot be considered. Negligence does not constitute good cause for extension of time.
Source excerpt
The preliminary objections are devoid of merit as there is no legal requirement to attach notice of appeal in an application for extension of time, and the issue of certificate of delay does not render the application premature.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal as time barred, holding that the certificate of delay was invalid and could not be rectified to extend time.
Explore more
