HASSAN MUSABAHA V YUSUPH MASENGEJA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA LAND APPEAL NO. 1784 OF 2024 HASSAN HUSSEIN MUSABAHA................................................. APPELLANT VERSUS YUSUPH LUPILYA MASENGEJA.................................................. RESPONDENT RULING 7/8/2024 & 24/9/2024 ROBERT, J:- This appeal arises from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) for Mwanza in Land Application No. 225 of 2021, delivered on 23rd November 2023, in which the appellant, Hassan Hussein Musabaha, was aggrieved by the judgment. However, before the appeal could be heard on its merits, the respondent, Yusuph Lupilya Masengeja, raised a preliminary objection contending that the appeal was time-barred, having been filed outside the statutory 45-day period prescribed under section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act. The court is called upon to determine whether the preliminary objection is meritorious, based on the timeliness of the appeal. During the hearing, i both parties appeared in person without legal representation, and the matter proceeded through written submissions. The respondent submitted that the law governing the filing of appeals from the DLHT is provided under section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216 R.E. 2019, which requires that appeals be lodged within 45 days from the date of the decision. The judgment of the DLHT was delivered on 23rd November 2023, meaning the deadline for filing the appeal was 7th January 2024. While the appellant contends that he submitted his appeal electronically on 26th December 2023, payment of the filing fees, which constitutes the official filing date, was only made on 25th January 2024. Therefore, the appeal was filed out of time. The respondent relied on several authorities, including Matoto Matoto vs. Makuru Irega (Misc. Land Appeal 8 of 2021) [2021] TZHC 3203 and Mohamed Pachanja & 3 Others vs. Francis Chagula (As an Attorney of Magret Koshuma/Magret Mazula), Land Reference No. 23 of 2023), which emphasize that the date of payment of court fees is the critical date for determining whether a filing is within time. 2 On his part, the appellant submitted that he lodged his appeal electronically on 26th December 2023, within the 45-day period. However, due to technical difficulties with the Judiciary's electronic filing system, he was unable to obtain the control number required for payment until 25th January 2024, when he made the payment. The appellant argued that the delay in receiving the control number was beyond his control, as it was caused by technical issues within the court system not his own negligence. The issue before the court is whether the appeal was filed out of time and, if so, whether the appellant has provided a sufficient legal basis to excuse the delay. The law is clear under section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act that an appeal from the DLHT must be filed within 45 days from the date of the decision. In this case, the DLHT delivered its judgment on 23rd November 2023, meaning the deadline for filing the appeal was 7th January 2024. The appellant's claim that he encountered technical difficulties with the electronic filing system, which delayed the generation of the control number for payment, is unsupported by the court's records. The appellant's assertions and printout of his filing do not demonstrate that he filed the appeal within the prescribed time or that there was a systemic issue that would justify his delay in payment. Moreover, the exchequer receipt attached to this appeal shows that payment was made on 25th January 2024, well beyond the 45-day deadline. It is important to note that this is not an application for an extension of time, where reasons for delay such as technical difficulties would be scrutinized and evaluated. Rather, this is a situation where the court must determine whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. In the absence of a formal application for an extension of time and without any record-based indication of technical difficulties, the court cannot excuse the appellant's failure to comply with the statutory deadline. The cases cited by the appellant, such as MW Rice Millers limited v. Murass Security Limited, Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2022 (unreported),and Josiah Zepharra Warioba v. Bouygues Energies and Services, Miscellaneous Application No. 28 of 2021, HC Labour Division at Arusha (unreported) are distinguishable. In those cases, there was clear indication of technical difficulties that were verified and acknowledged by the court. 4 Here, no such record exists, and the appellant's argument relies solely on unsubstantiated claims. Therefore, based on the record and the established jurisprudence, the appeal is time-barred. In view of the foregoing, this court finds that the appellant's petition of appeal was filed out of time, and the appellant has not provided sufficient grounds to excuse the delay. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent is upheld. The appeal is dismissed for being time-barred. Each party shall bear its costs of this appeal. 5