ally nassoro semboga vs yusuph mbegu yusuph 2020 tzhclandd 3833 26 october 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF •'- It. ) THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA VJ (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO 936 OF 2018 (Originating from Misc. Application No.210 of 2018 of Ilala District Land and Housing Tribunal) ALLY NASSORO SEMBOGA (Administrator of the estate of the late ASHA MBEGU YU5UPH) 1ST APPLICANT YUSUPH MBEGU YUSUPH 2Nd APPLICANT VERSUS AMINA MOHAMED RESPONDENT Date of Last Order; 18.08.2020 Date of Ruling 26.10.2020 RULING V.L. MAKANI.3 The applicant ALLY NASSORO SEMBOGA and YUSUPH MBEGU YUSUPH are seeking for orders of extension of time within which to file an appeal against the decision of liaia District Land and Housing Tribunai (the Tribunal) in Land Application No. 210 of 2018. The application has been made under 41(1) of the Land Disputes Court Act CAP 216 RE 2002. The application is supported by the joint affidavit of the applicants. By the court's order the application was argued by way of written submissions. And the parties drew and filed their own submissions. The applicants' main reason for delay is contained in paragraph 7 and 8 of the applicants' joint affidavit. That ruiing by the Tribunai was delivered on 09/05/2018 in favour of the respondent and they promptiy made a request to be supplied with the copies of the ruiing and the drawn order. However, they were suppiied with the said copies when they had only two days remaining for filing an appeal. They added that they used these two days for searching for a iawyer and upon securing him, time for filing the appeal had elapsed. They said they filed an application for extension of time, but it was struck out on 23/11/2018 for being incompetent. They contended that, on 17/12/2018 they filed this application. They insisted that the former appiication was struck out for reasons that the affidavit was defective not withstanding that the appiicants are lay persons. They insisted that the deiay was not seif-attributed and that the time spent in prosecuting the application which was struck out shouid be excluded. They prayed for this application to be granted. In reply, the respondent said that Misc. Land application No. 2010 of 2018 was not deiivered on 09/05/2018 and the copies were not suppiied on 20/06/2018 as aiieged by the appiicants. She said the present application is subject of Misc. Land Appiication No. 210 of 2018. She said that, the decision of the Tribunai was delivered on 09/05/2018 and 45 days within which applicants should appeal lapsed on 24/06/2018. She said the application for extension of time was filed on 17/12/2018 seven months after the date of judgment delivery and insisted that the applicants have not established sufficient reasons for their deiay. She averred further that the iaw has now developed the principle which requires the applicant to show reasons of delay of each day. Supporting her position she cited the case of Jehangir Aziz Abdulrasul & 2 Others vs. Balozi I. Abubakar & Another, Civil Appeal No.265/01 of 2016 (CAT- DSM)(unreported). She further insisted that ignorance of the law is not a defence to the applicants for filing defective application which was struck out on incompetent grounds. She prayed for this application to be dismissed with costs. In rejoinder the applicants reiterated the contents of the main submission and added that the matter originated from Misc. Land Application No.210 and not 2010 as it appears in their submission, they said the mention of 2010 was just a typing error. They said the ruling was delivered on 09/05/2018 and the copies were supplied on 20/06/2018. I have considered the affidavits and submissions from both parties. The issue for determination is whether the applicants have adduced sufficient reasons to enable the court to grant extension of time to file an appeal. According to the records, the decision subject of this application is Misc. Application No.210 of 2018 which was delivered on 09/05/2018, and copies of the ruling and drawn order were supplied on 20/06/2018. The applicants' main reason for the delay is that they were supplied with the copies only when two days remained for them to file an appeal and being laypersons, they used the remaining two days in search of a lawyer. On the other hand, the respondent replied that there are no sufficient reasons that have been given by the applicants for the application to be granted. Indeed, the applicants are claiming to have been delayed by the Tribunal, the question is when was the formal request for the copies of the ruling and drawn order made? The applicants have not stated as to when they applied for the copies of the judgment, they only claim to have made it promptly. But there is no copy of any letter attached to the affidavit reflecting that such a formal request was made to the Tribunal. A mere assertion that the applicants requested for the copies promptly cannot be relied upon by the court as "promptly" is not specific as it depends on facts of each case. The applicants should have therefore stated the exact date on which they requested for the copies of the judgment because in absence of this formal request, the Tribunal cannot be said to have delayed what was not requested. Further, the applicants are claiming that they had a defective application which was struck out on 23/11/2018. However, the particulars of the said application have not been provided by the applicant to enable to assist the court ascertain this fact that indeed, there was an application and it was struck out by this court for being incompetent. Mere statements cannot move the court to grant extension of time without there being satisfactory reasons supported by concrete proof. It is settled principle of law that every day of delay has to be accounted for. In the case of Bushiri Hassan vs. Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 3 of 2007,(unreported) it was stated that: ''Delay of even a single day, has to be accounted for otherwise there would be no proof of having rules prescribing periods within which certain steps have to be taken" In essence the applicants have failed to support their claim. The copies of judgment were ready for collection on 20/06/2018 and this application was filed on 17/12/2018, about six months from when the copies were ready for collection and the applicants has not accounted for such delay. Even if it is assumed that the copies of the ruling and drawn order were delayed, the applicants have not given sufficient reasons for the six months delay counted from when the copies were supplied. Basing on the above, I am of the firm view that, the applicants have failed to advance sufficient reasons to enable this court to grant extension of time to file their appeal. Consequently, this application is her^b^^mjssed with costs. It is so ordered. o G //i o >5: Olii 3 V.L. MAKANI o JUDGE 26/10/2020