alex bura vs hadija musa bakari administratrix of the estate of the late nobert nkiti 2021 tzhclandd 30 19 february 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC LAND APPLICATION NO. 325 OF 2020 (Arising from Misc. Land Application No. 356 o f 2019) ALEX T. BURA ......................................................................... . APPLICANT VERSUS HADIJA MUSSA BAKARI ( as the administratix Of the estate of the late NOBERT N. KITI)................................RESPONDENT RULING MAIGE, J This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania (CAT) against the decision of this Court in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 356 of 2019 granting the respondent herein an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kinondoni ("the trial tribunal") in Land Appeal No. 70 of 2015. The decision sought to be challenged to the Court of Appeal was delivered on 18.05.2020. This application has been filed on 16.06.2020. The application has been preferred under section 47(1) of the Land Dispute Court Act, Cap. 216, R.E. 2019, section 5(1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141, R.E., 2019 and rule 45 (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, G.N. 368 of 2009. It is founded on the affidavit of Flora Jacob, learned advocate. The respondent deposed a counter affidavit to contest the application. Whether the application has merit or not was argued by way of written submissions. Advocate Blanca Ligema presented the written submissions for the applicant while advocate Flora Jacob for the respondent. In his submissions in support of the application, Miss. Flora adopted the facts in the affidavit and contended that, serious issues calling the attention of the Court of Appeal have been demonstrated. He pinpointed two issues. First, whether there were sufficient grounds justifying an extension of time. Two, whether it was proper for the High Court Judge to revive the matter which had already been closed. In his rebuttal submissions, Mr. Manyama has urged the Court to hold that, the affidavit does not demonstrate any serious issues deserving attention of the Court of Appeal. He submits that, there were sufficient grounds for an extension of time. He submits further that, it is not true that the High Court judged revived that which had already been closed. 2 I have considered the rival submissions in line with the affidavit and counter affidavit. I have noted a serious debate on the substance of the two proposed issues/t^,do not think that at this juncture I am the appropriate forum to decide whether there was sufficient cause for extension of time. I cannot as well decide whether or not this Court revived a proceeding which had already been decided. My careful reading of the rival submissions does not however suggest that the two proposed issues are frivolous and vexatious. They are, in my view, bonafide arguable issues which may deserve attention of the Court of Appeal. In the circumstance, I find that this application with merit. Leave to appeal to the Court of Date 19/ 2/2021 Coram: Hon. A. Chugulu - DR. Applicant: Present in person he is represented by Ms. F. Jacob, Advocate Respondent: Present in person and represent by Blanca Ligema Advocate RMA: Bukuku 3 COURT: Ruling delivered this 19th day of February, 2021 in the chamber Court in the Presence of Ms. Flora Jacob learned counsel for applicant and Ms. Blanca Ligema learned counse for respondent. A. Chugjulu, Dl 19/ 2/2021