MISC LAND APPLICATION NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (KIGOMA SUB-REGISTRY) AT KIGOMA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2023 (Arising from Land case No. 67 of 2022 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kasulu at Kasulu) ELISI JAKOBO BIKEBUKA (Administratrix of the estate of the late JAKOBO BIKEBUKA) APPLICANT VERSUS PAULO JAKOBO BIKEBUKA RESPONDENT RULING Date: 30/07 & 21/10/2024 NKWABI, J.: Land application No. 67 of 2022 filed by the applicant herein was dismissed with costs because the trial tribunal was of the view that it was functus officio after dismissing a similar Land Application No. 10 of 2022 for being time barred. The applicant wishes to appeal against that ruling. She is again time barred hence seeking this Court to extend time to allow her to appeal to this Court. She has brought this application under section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act Cap. 216 of 2019 and any other enabling provisions of the law. She is praying for the orders as listed hereinbelow: 1 1. That this honourable Court be pleased to extend time within which the applicant can file an appeal out of time Land Case No 67 of 2022 of District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kasulu. 2. Costs of this application. 3. Any other reliefs. The chamber summons is supported by an affidavit of Elisi Jakobo Bikebuka, the applicant. Attempts to serve the respondent with summons and affidavit in support of this application proved futile after the respondent hided into his house. Thus, the application was heard ex-parte and disposed of by way of written submission duly drawn and filed by the applicant herself. In the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant avowed that the ruling was delivered on 27/04/2023. She made follow-up of the ruling on 01/05/2023 where the tribunal clerk told her that it was not yet typed. It was not until 02/07/2023 when she was supplied with the copy of the ruling and lodged this application on 25/02/2023. It is thus, she said, the delay in lodging the appeal was beyond her control. In her written submission, she reiterated what she averred in the affidavit in support of 2 ,, the application and cited among other cases the case of Henry Leonard & Another v. Ms. Anaeli Mongi & Another, Civil Application No. 31 of 2013. In my view, the applicant has failed to account for each day of the delay. Her affidavit mentions the tribunal clerk to have told her that the typing of the ruling was incomplete, she did not bring the affidavit of that tribunal clerk. Neither did she mention the name of that tribunal clerk. That contravenes the decision in Ramadhani J. Kihwani v. TAZARA, Civil Application No. 401/18 of 2018, CAT (unreported) where it was stated that: ''In application for enlargement of time, like the present, all material persons must swear affidavits to trigger the Court exercise its discretion under rule 10 of the Rules - see: Mary Rugomora v. Rene Polete, Civil Application No. 2 of 1992 (unreported). H For avoidance of doubt this Court clarified the discretion of the Court in applications of this nature in Wambura N. J. Waryuba v. The Principal 3 Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Another, Civil Application No. 320/01 of 2020, HC which ruled that: ''It is essential to reiterate here that the Court's power for extending time . . . is both wide ranging and discretionary but it is exercisable Judiciously upon causes being shown. " Predicated on the above deliberation, I am of the firm view that this application is wanting in merits, therefore, the application should disconsolately fail. I dismiss the application with no orders as to costs because the respondent neither entered appearance nor resisted it. It is so ordered. 4