MISC LAND CASE 25981 Alwatan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO.25981 OF 2024 {Arising from the decision of the liaia District Land and Housing Tribunal in Land Application No. 77 of 2010} DON ART KAIZ ALWATAN............................................ APPLICANT

VERSUS RAMADHAN ALLY MALETA.............................. 1st RESPONDENT ISSA SALUM (Adminstrator of the Estate of the /ateSALUM KONDO KINEGAJ.......................... 2nd RESPONDENT EX- PARTE RULING Date of Last Order: 14.11.2024 Date of Ruting: 10.12.2024 T,N, MWENEGOHA, J The applicant is seeking for an Order of extension of time so that he can lodge an Appeal out of time, against the Decision of Ilala District Land and Housing Tribunal, vide Land Application No.77 of 2010, dated 22nd July, 2024. The Application was brought under section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 206 R.E 2019. The same was accompanied by the affidavit of Danart Kaiz Alwatan, the applicant here in above and the same was heard through written submissions and ex-parte against both respondents. i In his written submissions in favour of the Application, the applicant insisted that, he filed his Appeal within time, but later discovered that, there were clerical mistakes in the Ruling and Drawn Order of the Tribunal, where the names of the parties were wrongly written. The applicant had to withdraw the Appeal, and apply for correction of the mistakes noted. The Trial Tribunal corrected the mistakes on the 10/10/2024 and the Application at hand was filed on 17/10/2024. Therefore, the delay was not caused by the applicant, rather by reasons beyond his control. I have considered the submissions by

the applicant as well as the affidavit in support of the Application. The issue for determination is whether the Application has merits or not. Basically, my duty as far as the case is concerned is to see if the applicant has good reasons and also has accounted for the days of delay. In fact, it has already been settled that, what makes good cause cannot be laid down by any hard and fast rule, as the term good cause is a relative one and is dependent upon the circumstances of each individual case. Further, it is known that, it is upon the party seeking extension of time to provide the relevant material in Order to move the Court to exercise its discretion, see Oswald Masatu Mwizarubi versus Tanzania Fish Processors Ltd, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Civil Application No. 13 of 2010 (unreported). In his submissions, the applicant gave one major reason for the delay to file the intended Appeal. That, at first, he filed his Appeal within time, later, the same was withdrawn after discovering the clerical mistakes as to the parties written in the impugned Ruling and drawn Order of the 2 Tribunal. When the corrections of the Order and Ruling of the Tribunal was complete, the time for Appeal had already lapsed, hence this Application. I find this reason to be sufficient enough to allow the Application at hand. Truth be said, it is not the applicant's delay, rather the Tribunal's. Had

he been supplied the documents in question without the noted mistakes as stated in the submissions, he would not be here. That is to say, the delay was caused by the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. The applicant has managed to account for the days of delay. For the foregoing reasons, I allow the Application as it has merits. The applicant is given 14 days from the date of this Ruling, to lodge the intended Appeal. T.N enegoha. Judge 10/12/2024 3