| dc.contributor.author | Mugasha, JA | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mwambegele, J.A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kerefu, J.A | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-03-17T09:33:32Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-03-17T09:33:32Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018-10-02 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://elibrary.osg.go.tz/handle/123456789/1713 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Held: (i) As the matter of a Rule of Practice, the record of appeal must speak for itself. In that regard, we are satisfied that failure to serve the letter in question to the Respondent violates Rule 90(3) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules. (ii) The Appellant is barred from relying on the exclusion of time spent by the High Court to prepare the certified copies of the proceedings, judgment, and decree. (iii) Granting an extension of time to serve the Letter to be supplied with the copies of proceedings to the Respondent is not proper, it will render insignificant the mandatory requirements stipulated under Rule 90(3). | en_US |
| dc.publisher | THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA | en_US |
| dc.subject | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 245 of 2019 | en_US |
| dc.title | MIC TANZANIA LIMITED v. ALBERT P. MILANZI, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 245 of 2019 | en_US |
