africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1990] TZHC 124Tanzania

John Mgoboleni vs Ally Lugunga (Misc Civil Cause No 84 of 1986) [1990] TZHC 124 (31 December 1990)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

BAHATI, h.:_

  • IN T.lJE HIGH CO"'..i""RT OP TJIJJZANIA AD: DAi:. ES -SALAAM ruse. crVIL CADGE NO. 84 OF 1986 (nom KilombeI'o D/C Civil Appeal lfool0/85) JOIJJ J'.iGOBOLEtTI , ••• • , • • • o ,, • • o •• o • • o APPLIC/0.1'.:: !~Jd'l LUGUHGil. RESPOrIDEl-f.,. 1

RULI]i_Q. This is an applica:iiio11 fo:;; leave to appeal to the Co, .. TI,,.i; of Appeal. fl 1 he rei?;so11s for t!J.is applica:Gion are that the applic 2 ;1;ion for extension o:::' ·Gime ,to file an appeal to ",;he High Cotu...-'G was not liliaxd by the "Iigh Cot.i.rt, l:m:t ins·be2<l. the intended appeal ·to the High Cov:c- w&-::J hca:rd. by mis·aJ.:.:c, . TJ.ie situation got even woI',se when a rulinr:; in::rl;ec.d. of a ju.d3T,1en·c 1-ras clelivered. In his :;;nli;.1.-g, ·Glle learned Jrcd[;o c1ea.l·G with the ::1e'.:::'i·i;o and demerits of ·:;he application for ex·c,:,nsion o:;:' ·i;ime and fot.i_;_,_cl :.10 ;·,1eri t in ·Ghe applicnocion :md di:iJr;1isceo. it. The applic;:11·0 ir:! ~~·grieved. by this rulL1c; 2.nrl he llas applied -o -:;u;;: Court for J.e;-; 0 :vs ·co appeal fo the Cottrt of A:.9pee1 suggestGcl ·:;o i)G & As ·bb.<:: · pe,:dies .-re:;;e not llem·d on the can tl1e l'",,li11c be allowed to s1;ai.1d in la:w? In 1•ep1.j 1 , the responden· said. nothing. I· is r.v view that thio a:::;plication should be allowed because of the alleg-erJ. c0.1oi;1aJ.y obt2.,i11ing ±n ·c:1is case DB set otrt by •:;he applicrur',; in :1if submission. T>ere is no qt.lGstion of cer·:;if-_y-ili:g a poin·:; of la:t-r -~o -the Couxt of 1. 1 )pG8.l been.use the mat·ccr being applied to be appealed. ag2.L.1r:.rt x:oso f'or t:'.le first ti,1e in -~he High

-- Court. I-'.; uao not th0rG in -'i;ll,c co-:.;i:rts below. 1Uthot 1 .[;'il ·:.is case o:ri 6 inafo □ ::?xon the Prima_j;y Cou.:ctj H is nw view that the 1re,1d.od appeal uill :10J.;_1Jo under section 5(2)(c) of' -he A::_:>pclle;e J,xd·l;'J¢1.ict- ion Ac· 1979 ~ bu· ti.no.er SEC J; ioa 5 ( 1) ( o) of the same -i; boo :11.1.sc the intendeC:. appG;;l is agoinst an ord.e:c o-Z -li1le I:igh; Coux·t rn::d; p:oVJ:ded for in section 5 ( 1) (a) ond (1)) • Applica;ion for lGave "lio aP1,e2.l to tl1G Cou.xt of ,App0al is -'liher0fo:rc CL"alYed• I ma.kc no o:::c1m: as ·o costs sincG ·i;}:10 lagpondent I could h2.:i:d.l;r :Je. oApected -'.;o b1ow 1-i::1£- ..:as being oPPliG( 1'or~ In any caoe ·f.1e1:1c is nothing whio:1 t71e.rcsponden·~ sai<.l ot;dnst -;;his Order: R1.\lin6 -~o bo typed. ru.1d SCi.1"'4i fo Norogoro to be rcacl -~o the

Discussion