ALLY KALIME SCANNED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 25497 OF 2024 (Arising From Land No. 67 of 2014, Land Division) ALLY MJINGA KALIME (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Mjinga Kalime Issa).................... APPLICANT VERSUS ABUBAKAR HASSAN MANENGELO..................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 4th to 11th December, 2024 E.B. LUVANDA, J This application is made by way of chamber summons supported by an affidavit. In the chamber summons, the Applicant is seeking extension of time within which the Applicant may prefer an application for an order for re-hearing of an application that was dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution after the Applicant had defaulted the scheduling order as ordered by this Court. At paragraph one of the affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant averred that this application is for extension of time to file an application to set aside dismissal order for an application that was dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution on 16/08/2017. At paragraph two of the affidavit, the Applicant stated that Land Case No. 67 of 2014 was scheduled for judgment by i this Court on 16/08/2017 and Hon. W.P. Dyansobera, J dismissed the said case for want of prosecution. At the bottom of a title reading amended affidavit, there are wordings, I quote, 7/7 support of the application for extension of time to file an application for setting aside Land Case No. 67 of 2014 dismissed by Honorable Court, dated l&h day ofAugust, 2017 before Hon. W.P. Dyansobera, J' In the counter affidavit, the Respondent stated that the application is frivolous, vexatious and abuse of court/judicial process in that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter which is incompetent application and the Applicant is telling lies in that: the prayers in the chamber summons are not in line with the affidavit supporting the chamber summons; the Applicant failed to attach necessary documentations to back up or support his allegations; the Applicant give illogical, false, inconsistent and contradictory accounts on the issue of awareness of the existence of various cases relating to the suit land. The Applicant did not file a reply to the counter affidavit to clarify these points. In his reply submission, Mr. M.R. Kiondo learned Counsel for Respondent reiterated the facts in the counter affidavit. Neither submission in chief for the Applicant nor rejoinder submission by the Applicant were traceable be it in the physical file or case management system 2 where only the documents filed therein, are taken to have been properly filed in Court. On the account of my preface above, along the averments in the counter affidavit, I have formed an opinion that this application is unmaintainable for having confusing prayers in the chamber summons which do not tally with averments in the affidavit in support of the application. In fact, the prayers or reliefs sought in the chamber summons are not supported by the affidavit. And what is stated in the affidavit is totally at variance with what the chamber summons reflects. To the extent that neither a chamber summons nor affidavit can stand be it on its own or in support of one another. This is because in the chamber summons the Applicant is seeking for reliefs for extension of time within which the Applicant may prefer an application for an order for re-hearing of an application that was dismissed. Here the Applicant make reference to an application and is intending to seek for rehearing of the application alleged dismissed for want of prosecution. At paragraph two of the affidavit, the Applicant stated that Land Case No. 67 of 2014 was scheduled for judgment by this Court on 16/08/2017 and Hon. W.P. Dyansobera, J dismissed the said case for want of prosecution. Here the Applicant is talking of Land Case as opposed to an application. Indeed, he allege that the said Land Case was scheduled for judgment, at the same time he 3 alleged it was dismissed for want of prosecution. One may ask as to how can a matter set for delivery of judgment be dismissed for want of prosecution? How can a matter which is at the stage of crafting judgment be dismissed for want of prosecution? At the title amended affidavit, the Applicant pleaded that it is an extension of time to file an application for setting aside Land Case No. 67 of 2014. How can such a land case be set aside? Also as alluded by the learned Counsel for Respondent, one could wonder as to how come the Judge could venture into dismissing the suit for want of prosecution, while at the stage of crafting judgment. This defy both logic and common sense. Above, all the Applicants alleged they were not aware as to what was going on in court proceedings. Therefore, for interest of broader justice, it is desirable for the application to be struck out, to pave a way for the Applicant to rectify the glaring anomaly. 4 Ruling delivered in the presence of Mr. Edward Mwalongo learned Counsel holding brief for Mr. Hassan Chande learned Counsel for Applicant and in the absence of the Respondents. 5