alex mwasumbi mwakanemela vs richard jurass 4 others 2021 tzhclandd 719 12 february 2021

m THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 884 OF 2018 ALEX MWASUMBI MWAKANEMELA. ..APPLICANT VERSUS RICHARD JURASS, ES NDENT ROMAN MBOSO ®|PONDENT VASTARON ASSENGO. RESPONDENT HALMASHAURI YA SER^AU Y?^Ti 4™ RESPONDENT KIBAHATOWN COUNi 5Tm respondent Date of Last Order: 27/. 20 Date ofRuling di 02. U N G MAN^,J. The raplicant fil^thi^pplication seeking extension of time to appeal against tT^^cisiogjf the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kibaha in Land Applic^^^^. 49 of 2010. The Application is by way of Chamber summons supported by an affidavit sworn by Kelvin Kidifu, the applicants advocate. The respondents opposes the Application and they filed a counter affidavit to that effect. The applicant was represented by Mr. James Mwenda learned advocate, the fourth and fifth respondents were represented by Revocatus T. Mathew Kibaha Township solicitor while the first, second and third respondents prosecuted this application jointly by themselves. The application was argued by way of written submissions. According to the affidavit sv^rorn in support of this application, the reasons advanced in accounting for the delay are illegality in the proceedings of the trial tribunal and failure to obtain copy of the Judgement and decree of the Trial Tribunal within time. Paragraph four of affid^^^dicates that, the judgement was delivered on 23'" February 20 requested to be supplied with copies of Judgement ^d he managed to be served with the documen^^S'^^^^^^^e then filed Misc. Land Application No. 295 of 20 . The applicant's counsel argued that the appiica^^e^^^^^^y he prayed that this court finds this reasons thycontribu^^to^l^^fclay to be sufficient to grant extension of time. In their joint ub 10 t, second and third respondents submitted th lica lied to advance any sufficient reason to warra on tim argued that, the application be dismissed for h®failure to or the delay with a sufficient reason. According to them, t^^plican»as spent almost a year to file this application after the struck out^fefes^Knd Application No. 295 of 2017. Commenting on the conduct of the applicant in pursuing this matter, the respondents argued that the applicant was negligent. They submitted further that, the application was struck out on 10'*^ October 2018, this application was filed on 10"^ September 2019. The applicant had not accounted for a i -V: * ■ '■c wjl delay of almost one year. He only stated that he was making follow up on the ruling but he produced no evidence to substantiate the same. The 4"' and 5^ respondents' counsel argued that applicant did not account for the delay with a sufficient reason. Citing the case of AMI (T) Limited Versus OTTU on behalf of P.L Assenga and 106 others, Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2008, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar ^^laam, the learned counsel argued the applicant ought to have accfcited for^^ day of delay the duty which the applicant failed to disctwge. I^^WKLed^^EPmission that, the applicant's delay was due to or^^jiegli^^^^ariMjhp applicant should not benefit from his own wroi In his rejoinder, counsel fq sel rei erated his submission in chief. He argued that t appii ptT^gligent and that the delay is a technical delay roieawi M c. Land Application No. 295 of 2017. He cite th ^ambura NJ Waryuba Versus The Princip tary nistry of Finance and the Attorney Gene qffiania Civil Application No. 225/01/2019. He al ighligh xistghce of illegality based on the trial tribunal's refusal to admit ide the applicant's sale agreement. I have considered submissions by both parties and the court record. Court record shows that the trial tribunal delivered its judgement on 23'''' Februan/ 2017. The copy of Judgement was ready for collection on 6''' April 2017. The applicant attached a letter dated 27'^^ February 2017 which was written by the appiicant's advocate to the Trial Tribunal requesting for copies of judgment and decree in Land Application No. 49 of 20i0. It is also not disputed that the applicant filed application No. 295 of 2017 on 11'^ April 2017. The application was struck out on lO''^ October 2018 and the applicant filed this application on 3'''' December 2018. Court record does not establish when the High Court Ruling was ready for collection but the applicant wrote a letter dated 1^ November 2018 requesting for the^id copy. The actions of the applicant in his efforts to pursue the Intended a^^i establishes that his delay In filing the intended appeal was nd ne enc t was caused by delay in obtaining copies ofjudgment of'^tribunal, and the ruling of this court after stn ut pile No 5 of 2017. It should be noted that copies c^ud cr re very Important documents for a party intendiafi to ea pa d to read the copies of judgement, decree an here es pr dings of the case in order to formulate a soun W ch cuments, a party may file an appeal on the ds been rectly determined by the court. Delay in pbtai ormidgernent and decree in time has been consi icie round for extension of time in a number of cases HE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE MARIAN FAITH mHEALI CENTRE@WANAMAOMBI VERSUS THE REGISTREBEKIPtRUSTEES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SUMBAWANGA DIOCESE Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2007, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam. I also find it to be a sufficient reason to extend time for the applicant in this application. The application is hereby granted. The Appiic-jnt should file his appeal within 14 days from the date of extraction of the drawn order from this '-uiing. Given the nature of this application I ar. a^d no costs. Each party should bear its own costs. Z. D. MANG0 JUDGE 12/02/2021 xjyA o Qi: o V a -K