53

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA JUDICIARY IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MBEYA SUB - REGISTRY AT MBEYA MISC LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 8932 OF 2024 (From Misc: Labour Application No. 26 of 2022 in this very present High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya) MAURICE SELEMANI MWAMWENDA…………………..………APPLICANT VERSUS THE LABOUR COMMISIONER……………………………..1ST RESPONDENT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND……………………………………………….2ND RESPONDENT RASHID NDITI…………………………………………….…..3RD RESPONDENT MLIMA MBEYA VIEW ACADEMY LTD T/A HIGH SCHOOL...........................................................4TH RESPONDENT EUGEN TEMIGUNGA T/A FAGIO COURT BROKER…..5TH RESPONDENT EXPARTE RULING Date: 30 July 2024 & 30 August 2024 SINDA, J.: The applicant brought this application under Rule 56 (1) (2); 55 (2) and 24 (1); (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f); 3 (a) (b) (c) (d); 4 (a) (b); (5); (6); (7); (8); 1 (9); (10) (a) (b) 11(b) and 25 (1) (2) (a) (b) and (3) of the Labour Court Rules GN No. 106 of 2007 (the Rules). The background of the matter is that on 22 February 2024, this Honourable Court noting the fourth respondent’s prayers that the preliminary objection raised by the fourth respondent be dealt by way of written submission. The Court scheduled the same to be filed on 29 February 2024. Upon receiving the submission in chief, the applicant was supposed to file a reply by 14 March 2024. However, upon filing the said reply in the new e-filing system, some technical issues arose that led to failure in filing the reply within time. Now, the applicant through chamber summons supported by his affidavit, brought this application on the following grounds: 1. That this honorable court be pleased to grant this application for enlargement of time within which to lodge an application for extension of time within which to file a reply to the written submission in chief of the fourth respondent’s preliminary objection out of time framed by this court of fourteen days. 2. And any other reliefs that this honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant for the interest of justice. 2 The application was heard orally, where the applicant appeared in person unrepresented and the respondents were not in attendance. Hence the matter proceeded ex parte. In his submission in chief, the applicant stated that he filed this application to file a reply to the preliminary objection raised by the fourth respondent out of time. He added that the main ground of this application is that there was a technical issue while filing his application on the eCMS system. Whereas, he also failed to communicate with his advocate to file the application on the eCMS. The applicant insisted that his intention was not to cause technical delay and that he will suffer loss if this application is not granted. Having considered the submission by the applicant in relation to the application thereto, the most pressing issue to be determined is whether the applicant has provided good cause in moving this court to allow his application. To begin, I wish to reproduce the provision of Rule 56 (1) of the Rules, that states: 3 “56.- ( 1) The Court may extend or abridge any period prescribed by these Rules on application and on good cause shown, unless the Court is precluded from doing so by any written law.” The above provision should be read together with the case of Osward Masatu Mwizarubi vs. Tanzania Fish Processing Ltd, Civil Application No. 13 of 2010 (unreported), where the Court of Appeal stated: - "What constitutes good cause cannot be laid down by any hard and fast rules. The term 'good cause' is a relative one and is dependent upon the party seeking extension of time to provide the relevant material in order to move the Court to exercise its discretion" From the above referred decision, what constitutes good cause depends on the circumstance of each case. However, from decided cases, certain factors provide guidance on whether or not the applicant has shown good cause. In the case of Lyamuya Construction Company Limited vs Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania, Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 (Unreported) in which the Court of Appeal expounded factors to be considered in determining whether sufficient cause has been shown as follows; (a) The applicant must account for all the period for delay; (b) The delay should not be inordinate; (c) The applicant must show diligence, and not apathy, negligence or sloppiness in the prosecution of the action that he intends to take; and 4 (d) If the court feels that there are other sufficient reasons, such as the existence of a point of law of sufficient importance; such as the illegality of the decision sought to be challenged" In the matter at hand, the applicant seeks extension of time to file a reply as stated herein and his main ground being there was a problem with the electronic system of filling cases. In my opinion, what the applicant stated in both his submission and affidavit are mere statements that could not be proved, as he did not adduce any evidence. The law is clear as seen in the provision and case laws above, that in order for a court to be moved and grant such an application, the applicant must provide good cause. With equal importance, should account for each day of the delay. Both of which, cannot be proved without evidence and thorough arguments. The applicant, as seen in the second paragraph of the affidavit, was supposed to file his reply within fourteen (14) days that is on 14 March 2024. Obviously a long time has passed. Indeed, he mentioned the technical issue with the e-filing system but he did not account for each day of delay. Additionally, during his submission he also mentioned that he failed to communicate with his advocate so as to file the reply on the system. Needless to say, that appears to be sloppiness on the applicant’s part, and 5 therefore goes against the third factor as expounded in the case of Lyamuya Construction Company Limited (supra). In ordinary circumstances, the court would expect in the least, an affidavit from the registry’s office confirming the applicant’s contentions. That truly, the eCMS malfunctioned. In that way, it would be rather clear that the delay was out of the applicant’s control. Unfortunately, that was not done and it is uncertain whether the applicant is being truthful. If these kinds of allegations are received in court and the courts act positively towards them without enough evidence, it will create a leeway for similar applications with similar shortcomings to be granted. The fact that the respondents will not be prejudiced by granting of the application does not necessarily exonerate the applicant from his duty of providing good cause so that his application may be granted. In the circumstances I find that the applicant has not advanced sufficient reason in moving this court to enlarge time. Consequently, the application lacks merits and it is dismissed. As the matter was heard ex parte, there is no order as to costs. 6 DATED at MBEYA on this 30 day of August 2024. A. A. SINDA JUDGE 7