Misc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 11663 OF 2024 BERTHA TENENDE MUTEGEKI................................... APPLICANT VERSUS ACHES (T) LTD.................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT KIBANGO GENERAL BUSINESS (T) LTD AND TRIBUNAL BROKER.................................. 2ND RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 09/09/2024 Date of Ruling: 09/09/2024 LALTAIKA, J, The Applicant herein Bertha Tenende Mutegeki, way back in May 2024 brought this application under Section 14(i) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap 89 R.E. 2019, Section 93 and 95 and Order IX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E 2019] among other laws. Her prayers are for extension of time to appeal against judgement and decree of the Ubungo District Land and Housing Tribunal in Land Application No. 362 of 2027. Page 1 of 4 Unfortunately, ever since the Application was filed, neither the Applicant nor her Advocate enter appearance. Apparently, Order IX Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E. 2019 (the CPC) comes to my rescue to ensure that the application does not continue to occupy court lockers indefinitely. I take the liberty to reproduce the provision for purposes of clarity: 2. Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing the court may make an order that the suit be dismissed. Apparently, this application has been crowding this docket since May with no sign of any progress. To this end, I am inclined to borrow a leaf from the High Court of Uganda in in the case of Dr. James Akampumuza vs. Eddie Tukamushaba Kuroboza, Makerere University Business School & 2 others (unreported) thus: "O. 17 r 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules... enable the Courts to manage their workload by eliminating all cases which appear rather redundant from its system. This is part of Court Case Management toots applied by the Judiciary. This Order can be invoked by either party or by the court on its own motion." Page 2 of 4 For avoidance of doubt, the Or. 17 r 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules of Uganda is very specific on time during which a suit can be considered ripe for dismissal for want of prosecution. The provision provides: 5. Dismissal of suit for want ofprosecution. If the plaintiff does not within eight weeks from the delivery of any defence, or, where a counterclaim is pleaded, then within ten weeks from the delivery of the counterclaim, set down the suit for hearing, then the defendant may either set down the suit for hearing or apply to the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, and on the hearing of the application the court may order the suit to be dismissed accordingly, or may make such other order, and on such terms, as to the court may seem just." Without prejudice to the above, abandoning one's suit for more than two years cannot be tolerated. In Nilani versus Patel & Others [1969] EA 340 Dickson J held that: "a Plaintiff who is in pursuit of a remedy, should take all necessary steps at his disposal to achieve an expeditious determination of his c/aim. He shou/d not be guilty of latches...z/ It should be noted that the word "Applicant" and "Plaintiff" carry the same meaning in the context used herein. Page 3 of 4 In the upshot, the application is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution It is so ordered. E. I. LA LTAl KA JUDGE 09/09/2024 Page 4 of 4