Cyprian N

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB-REGISTRY

AT MUSOMA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 00031396 OF 2024 REFERENCE NUMBER 202412121000031396 (Arising from the Decision of the District Court of Musoma in civil case No. 17717 of2024)

BETWEEN CYPRIAN N. MENEJA.................................................................. APPLICANT

VERSUS ZANZIBAR NYAHITI MICROFINANCE...................................... RESPONDENT

RULING 26th& 26th March, 2025 M, L. KO MBA, J,: The application at hand is for extension of time to appeal out of time against the decision of the Musoma District Court in Civil Case No. 17717 of 2024. The application is premised under section 14 (1) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap 89 R.E 2019] and is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. Derived from the affidavit filed by the applicant which was very brief, Musoma District Court delivered judgment in Civil case No. 17717 of 2024 and the said judgment was in his favour and decided to appeal but applicant fall sick. He was hospitalized at Kwangwa Hospital (Mwalimu Nyerere Memorial Referral Hospital) where after a while, he was referred to Page 1 of 4 Bugando Medical Center and attached under paragraph 3 of his affidavit a referral Form with number 109/342/04/725 dated 20/11/2024. When the matter was placed for hearing both parties appeared in person without representation. Respondent failed to file counter affidavit so he had a right to argue legal issue only. Applicant was of the submission that he intended to appeal against the decision of Musoma District court but he was sick and was hospitalized. He prayed this court to grant his application on that ground. Respondent resisted the application without citing ant point of law as he had not forum to argue on affidavit. Having considered the application's records

and his submission, the duty of this Court lies to consider whether or not this application is meritorious. It is trite law that whenever any part seeks for extension of time to file an application or appeal out of time, he/she must advance the sufficient reason (s) that the court can consider it before granting the same. As the matter of fact, there is no decisive definition of what a sufficient/good cause is, however, in determining the good cause courts have been invariably taking into account various factors including length of delay involved, reasons for delay, the degree of prejudice if any that each party is likely to suffer, the conduct of the parties and the need to balance the interests of a party who has a decision in his favour against Page 2 of 4 the interests of a party who has a constitutionally underpinned right of appeal. See Jaliya Felix Rutaihwa vs Kalokora Bwesha & Another, Civil Application No. 392/01 of 2020, CAT at Dar es Salaam, Paradise Holiday Resort Limited vs Theodore N. Lyimo, Civil Application No. 435/01 of 2018, CAT at Dar Es Salaam and Ludger Bernard Nyoni vs National Housing Corporation, Civil Application No. 372/01/2018, CAT at Dar Es Salaam (Unreported). In the present case the applicant's reasons for delay is based on sickness. The applicants attached the referral from Kangwa Hospital to Bugando Hospital that was 20 November 2024 and

immediately after he recovered, he took measures to bring back his case in the processes of appeal and he found he was out of time. On 6th December 2024 logged this application. In the case of Pastory J. Bunonga vs Pius Tofiri, Miscellaneous Land Application No. 12 of 2019 (unreported), Rumanyika, J. as he was then held: 'Where it was on the balance of probabilities proved, sickness has been good and sufficient ground for extension of time yes. But with all fairness the fact cannot be founded on mere allegations. There always must be proof by the applicant that he fell sick and for the reason of sickness he was reasonably prevented from taking the necessary step within the prescribed time.' Page 3 of 4 Together with his supporting affidavit, the applicant attached referral form from one hospital to another that show he was really sick and was in need of serious medical attention. From the above foregoing it is my opinion that the applicant presented justified and good reason for this Court to warrant the extension of time of which to lodge the appeal against the decision of the District Court in Civil Case Number 17717 of 2024. Moreover, the respondents opted not to file counter affidavit although he contests the applicant's application without supporting provision of law. The situation made this court to have no much choice than to grant the applicant's application. It is

common place that where an application is not countered through an affidavit in reply, that application is deemed to be admitted, see Martin D. Kumalija & 117 Others vs Iron and Steel Ltd, Civil Application No. 70/18 of 2018 (CAT), (unreported). In the event, I am of the considered findings that the applicant has demonstrated a sufficient cause for this Court to grant extension of time. I therefore find the application meritorious and I allow it. The applicant is therefore given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file his appeal. No order as to costs. It is so ordered M. L. KOMBA

JUDGE 26th March, 2025 Page 4 of 4