CHRISTINA JONAS MFUMYA AND ONOTHER V IBRAHIM KAMANA SAID

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB-REGISTRY AT TABORA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 3818 OF 2024 (Arising from the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora in Land Application No. 47 of2023) 1. CHRISTINA JONAS MFUMYA 2. JONAS MFUMYA.... ............ ........................................ APPLICANTS VERSUS IBRAHIM KAMANA SAID (as the Administrator of the estate of the late Hadija RamadhaniMohamed)...................... RESPONDENT Date of Last Order: 12/11/2024 Date ofDelivery: 0S/02/2025 RULING KADILU, J. The Applicants have applied for an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora in Land Application No. 47 of 2023. The application was heard in writing. In an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ally Maganga, their Advocate, they allege that the delay was caused by the Tribunal's late supply of copies of appeal documents. They explained further that the impugned decision was delivered on 4/12/2023 and they were supplied with copies of the judgment and decree on 5/2/2024. In motivating their application, the applicants assert that the Trial Tribunal heard and determined the dispute exparte against them although their Advocate fell sick, which they communicated to the tribunal in writing. i To them, the tribunal's decision was tainted with irregularities for being reached without hearing the applicants. In response, the respondent stated that the factors for the court to grant an extension of time are well known. He contended that the applicants have not met any of the factors as they have failed to account for each day of delay and show a good cause for the delay. He expounded that the applicants blamed the trial tribunal for not having supplied themi with appeal documents timely, but they did not show that they were following up on the said documents. The respondent added that the impugned judgment was delivered in December 2023, and the applicants were supplied with copies in early February 2024. However, they did not appeal immediately. They wasted time until 26/2/2024 when they filed this application for the extension of time. According to the respondent, the applicants were negligent in pursuing their case hence, they should not hide under the umbrella of a delayed supply of appeal documents. To him, the alleged illegalities are non-existent in the present case. He urged the court to deny the applicants' prayers since they have not met the requirements for granting an extension of time as set out in the case of Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd v. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania, Civil Application No. 2 of 2010. Having gone through the prayers set out in the chamber summons and the grounds stated In the applicants' affidavit, the issue for determination is whether the applicants have demonstrated a good cause of delay for this court to exercise discretion in granting them an extension of time. The law does not define what a good cause is. However, case law has established 2 factors to be considered in determining whether a good cause has been established or not. They include the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, whether there is an arguable case such as where there is a point of law or the illegality or otherwise of the decision sought to be challenged, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted. On scrutiny of the whole application, it is my holding that the applicants have not convinced this court that the delay was caused by genuine reasons. Under Section 41 (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, [Cap. 216 R.E. 2019], the applicants had forty-five (45) days from 4/12/2023 within which they could appeal. They told the court that they obtained appeal documents on 5/2/2024. Nonetheless, they did not appeal promptly, instead, they slept over their right up to 26/2/2024 when they applied for an extension of time. The Law of Limitation Act is clear that the time limitation for appeal starts to run When the appellant obtains appeal documents from the trial court. In that regard, until 5/2/2024, the applicants were still within the time of appeal. However, they remained idle for twenty-one (21) days without filing an appeal. In the affidavit supporting an application, they have not also accounted for the 21 days of delay. They asserted that the decision of the tribunal was illegal because it was reached in violation of their right to be heard. According to them, the tribunal heard the respondent only after the applicants' Advocate fell sick. I wish to point out that under Regulation 11 (2) of the Land Disputes Courts (the District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, 2002, the applicants had an opportunity to apply to the Tribunal to set aside its exparte decision. In case of refusal by the tribunal, the applicants could then appeal to this 3 Court. As such, this point was not supposed to be raised as a ground in an application for the extension of time. I, therefore, agree with the respondent's argument that the applicants have not shown diligence in following up on their case and have not advanced a good cause for the delay. Section 14 (1) of the Law of Limitation Act provides that for the applicant to be granted an extension of time, he has to advance before the court reasonable or sufficient cause explaining what delayed or prevented him from taking necessary steps timely to enable the court to exercise its discretion. In the case of Wambele Mtumwa Shahame v. Mohamed Hamis, Civil Application No. 138 of 2016z the Court of Appeal at Dar es Salaam held that the applicant should account for each day of delay. A delay of even a single day has to be accounted for if the applicant is to be granted an extension of time. I must therefore, conclude that the applicants have failed to convince the court that the delay is inordinate, was for a good cause, and they were not negligent in taking appropriate steps concerning their case. Consequently, the application has failed and it is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear its costs. It is so ordered. CADILU, M. J. JUDGE 05/02/2025 4 Ruling delivered in chamber on the 5th day of February, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Ally Maganga, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Ibrahim Kamana Said, the respondent. JUDGE 05/02/2025 5