bakari juma madebe vs ramadhani salum boli and another 2020 tzhclandd 3844 19 october 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO 406 OF 2019 (Originating from Morogoro District Land and Housing Tribunal In Land Appilcab'on No.l43 of 2017) BAKARI JUMA MADEBE (Administrator of the Estate of the late Asha Juma). APPLICANT VERSUS RAMADHANISALUM BOLI l^RESPONDENT RANSON A. FUE Z'"' RESPONDENT Date of Last Order: 13.08.2020 Date of Ruling 19.10.2020 RULING V.L. MAKANI. J The applicant BAKARI JUMA MADEBE is seeking for orders of extension of time within which to file an appeal against the decision of Morogoro District Land and Housing Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Land Application No. 143 of 2017. The application is under section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Court Act CAP 216 RE 2002 and is supported by the affidavit of the applicant. The main reasons for the delay in filing the appeal are advanced in paragraph 10 of the applicant's affidavit that he did not receive copies of the judgment from the Tribunal in time. With leave of the court the application was argued by way of written submissions. The applicant's submissions were drawn gratis by Ms. Irene Felix Nambuo, Advocate from Legal and Human Rights Centre and were filed by the applicant himself. The reply was jointly drawn and filed by the respondents. Submitting in support of the application Ms. Nambuo said that the complained judgment was delivered on 17/05/2019 in favour of the respondents. She said that the applicant wrote letters (BM2 and BM3) requesting for the certified copies. She said that the applicant made several follow-ups to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal was reluctant to supply the copies and they were released after the expiry of 41 days. She added that the applicant is of the lower income and therefore it was difficult for him to find an advocate within the remaining four days. She said that the applicant was conducting a fundraising for transport fare in order to collect the said copy of judgment. She added that, after he obtained the said copy he had to seek legal assistance and was informed that he was out of time and since he is a layman was also unaware of the legal technicalities of the law. She prayed for the application to be granted. In reply the respondents stated that, the applicant has not made any effort to remind and communicate with the Tribunal for the copies of the judgment, neither did he produce tickets to justify that he was making foiiow-ups. They added that the applicant obtained the said copies prior to the expiry of 45 days. They said that the applicant contributed to the delay as he did not take any action in the remaining four days. They insisted that the applicant has not been able to show sufficient grounds for delay. They averred that since the copy was supplied to the applicant four days before, then this application is of no merit. They prayed for this application to be dismissed. The applicant did not file a rejoinder. It is a set principle of the law that an application for extension of time is entirely in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse it, and that extension of time may only be granted where it has been sufficiently established that the delay was with sufficient cause (see: Benedict Mumello vs. Bank of Tanzania, Civii Appeai No. 12 of 2002 (CAT)(unreported). It is on record that judgment in the Tribunal was delivered on 17/05/2019. The applicant on 21/05/2019, 27/05/2019 and 25/06/2019 applied for the certified copy of the judgment. On 26/06/2019 the copy was ready for collection at the Tribunal. It is apparent that, the applicant is a layperson (under the Legal Aid of Legal and Human Rights Centre); and soon after the delivery of the judgment (on 21/05/2019) the applicant kept on knocking the doors of the Tribunal by filing two letters dated 27/05/2019 and 25/06/2019 requesting for the copy of the judgment. This is evidence that the applicant, besides being a lay person, was actively pursuing his appeai. In view of the above, this court finds that there are sufficient reasons to enable the court to exercise its discretion to extend the time within which to fiie an appeal. This application is therefore meritorious, and it is granted. The applicant shall file the said appeal within 21 (twenty-one) days from the date of this ruling. There shall be no order as to costs. It is so orc^red. e? % iitly Yl^xjcci/w. A ^// V.L. MAI^Nl" lArn DIN JUDGE 19/10/2020