GOEFREY IBRAHIM Vs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DODOMA SUB REGISTRY) AT DODOMA LAND APPEAL NO. 9375 OF 2024 (Originating from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Iramba at Kiomboi in Land Application No. 14 of 2020 dated 16/03/2022) GEOFREY IBRAHIM (The Administrator of the Estate of the late MARIAM MUSSA GAMBATU)……………....…………APPELLANT Versus KEPHASI PYUZA…………………………….………….…………………1ST RESPONDENT MWANAHAMISI RAJABU…………………………….…………………2ND RESPONDENT RULING Date of last order: 14th August, 2024. Date of Ruling: 13th Sept, 2024. E.E. KAKOLAKI, J. The appellant herein unsuccessfully sued the respondents before the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Iramba at Kiomboi in Land Application No. 107 of 2023, as his prayers for being declared as lawful owner of plot land located at Nduguti Ward within Mkalama District, in Singida Region and the restriction of respondents or their agents or any other person acting on their behalf from interfering with the suit land were dismissed for want of proof of ownership of the suit land. Not amused he has knocked doors of this Court by way of appeal fronting his grievances in five grounds of appeal which for the purposes of this ruling I don’t find it imperative to reproduce them. On the 05/06/2024 when the appeal came for mention the appellant appeared in person unrepresented while the respondents had the services of Mr. Denis 1 Odhiambo, learned advocate and parties were ordered to argue the appeal by way of written submission as the schedule for filing them was also set by the Court on that date. It was ordered that, the appellant should file his submission in chief on or before 19/06/2024 while the respondents were to file their reply submission on or before 03/07/2024 and the appellant’s rejoinder submission if any by 10/07/2024. The matter was set for mention on 25/07/2024 with view of fixing a judgment date. However, on 25/07/2024 when the matter came for mention with view of establishing compliance of court’s orders by the parties for filing of submissions and setting the judgment date only the respondents appeared through their advocate Mr. Odhiambo as the appellant defaulted appearance without any notice. The Court was informed on that day by the learned counsel that, from 19/06/2024 up to 02/07/2024 a day before the deadline for respondents to file their reply submission, the appellant had not filed any submission in support of his appeal be it in hard copy or soft form as ordered by the court the result of which forced him to write and file in Court a letter dated 02/07/2024 notifying of the non-compliance of Court’s orders by the appellant and the respondents’ failure to file their reply submission timely due to appellant’s failure to file his. Since the appellant was absent on that day and in appreciation of the right to be heard before any adverse decision is entered against him, Mr. Odhiambo prayed the Court to adjourn the matter to another day and summon the appellant so that both parties could be heard on that non-compliance with 2 court’s orders, the prayer which was cordially granted as the matter was adjourned to 14/08/2024 and the summons issued to the appellant. On the 14/08/2024 both parties appeared before the court ready to address it on the appellant’s failure to file his submission in chief in support of the appeal and its effect. Addressing the court the appellant admitted to have filed his submission in chief on 10/07/2024 while claiming that Court’s orders were to the effect that he should file the same by 13/07/2024, thus the same was filed in time. In response Mr. Odhiambo countered that, it is not true that the Court ordered the appellant to file his submission in chief on 13/07/2024 as contended by him arguing that, court’s record will bail him out on this fact. He said, Court orders were to the effect that, the Appellant should file his submission in chief on 19/06/2024, Respondents' reply submission be filed by 03/07/2024 and the rejoinder submission by 10/07/2024. That, the respondents waited for service of the said submission in chief in vain until 02/07/2024 when he wrote a letter to the Court with Ref. No. KA/2024/LT/95 informing of the respondents’ failure to file their submission for want of service of the submission in chief by the appellant. According to him, Appellant's submission in chief was signed on 09/07/2024 and filed in court on 10/07/2024 which is outside the prescribed time by the Court and that, there is no reasons advanced by him justifying such violation of court's order. He therefore prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution while inviting the Court to consider its own decision in the case of Famari 3 Investment (T) Ltd Vs Abdallah Selemani Komba (As the Adminstrator of the Estate of the late Sharifa Abdallah Salama), Misc. Civil Application No. 41 of 2018 (HC-unreported) where the Court was confronted with similar situation and held that, failure to file submission in time amounted to failure to prosecute hence dismissed the appeal. In this matter he argued, since the appellant filed his submission outside the time prescribed by the Court, it was respondents’ prayer that the appeal be dismissed with costs. In rejoinder the appellant insisted that his written submissions were filed in time and therefore the prayer by the respondents be disregarded. I have dispassionately considered both parties submission and revisited the court proceedings in a bid to answer the issue as to whether the appellant defaulted compliance of court orders and if so what are the consequences. It is uncontroverted fact as rightly admitted by Mr. Odhiambo that, appellant’s submission in chief in support of his appeal was filed outside the prescribed time as per the court orders issued on 05/06/2024. I disbelieve appellant’s submission that, he believed the dates for filing the said submission in chief was 10/07/2024 which was the date for filing rejoinder submission if any as he was personally in court on 05/06/2024, when the filing schedules of submissions were entered. I find his assertion to be an afterthought for being advanced after discovering that the submissions were filed outside the time scheduled by the Court. As rightly submitted by Mr. Odhiambo the submission which I embrace the settled law is that, failure to file the submission as 4 ordered by the Court is tantamount to nonappearance at a hearing hence failure to prosecute on the part of the appellant or failure to defend on the respondent’s part. It is so as the guiding principle in the conduct of proceedings before courts is based on the settled law that, court orders and directives are issued for the purposes of regulating the conduct of proceedings hence must be obeyed and complied with by the parties. In our jurisdiction the practice of filling written submissions on the scheduled dates is equal to orally hearing on the date set by the court, thus consequences befalling the party in default of filing written submissions in time are similar to the ones affecting the party who failed to appear and prosecute or defend the case on the date schedule for hearing. See the cases of Olam Tanzania Limited Vs. Halawa Kwilabya, DC. Civil Appeal No.17 of 1999 (HC-unreported), P3525 LT Idahya Maganga Gregory Vs. The Judge Advocate General, Court Martial, Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2002 (unreported) and Famari Investment (T) Ltd (supra. In the case of P3525 LT Idahya Maganga Gregory (supra) the Court had the following observation to make concerning party’s failure to file the submission in compliance with Court orders: It is now settled in our jurisprudence that the practice of filling w ritten subm issions is tantam ount to a hearing and; therefore, failure to file the subm ission as ordered is equivalent to nonappearance at a hearing or w ant of prosecution. The attendant consequences of failure to file w ritten subm issions are sim ilar to those of failure to appear and prosecute or defend, as the case may be. Court 5 decision on the subject matter is binding...Similarly, courts have not been soft with the litigants who fail to comply with court orders, including failure to file written submissions within the time frame ordered. Needless to state here that submissions filed out of time and without leave of the court are not legally placed on records and are to be disregarded." (Emphasis supplied) It is trite law that court’s orders are made to be implemented and therefore must be obeyed unless vacated by the court issuing them or displaced by the superior court. If orders made by courts are disregarded or ignored, the system of justice will grind to a half or it will be so chaotic so that everyone will decide to do only that which he is conversant with or pleased to do. See the case of KMJ Telecommunication Ltd Vs. Airtel Tanzania Ltd, Misc. Commercial Cause No. 384 of 2017, Shabani Amuri Sudi (the administrator of the estate of the late Amuri Sudi Vs. Kazumari Hamisi Mpala, Misc. Land Application No.30 of 2019 (HC-unreported) and Olam Tanzania Limited (supra). Any violation or disobedience to court orders by the party is punishable at law as any degree of tolerance to it amounts to voluntary invitation to judicial chaos, disrespect and injustice. In this matter appellant’s act of filing his submission in chief in support of his appeal outside the prescribed time by the Court hence violation of court orders, I hold is tantamount to failure to enter appearance before the Court on the date scheduled for hearing. Now what are the consequences of appellant’s failure to appear before the Court when the appeal was set for 6 hearing? The only consequence in my humble view is none than dismissal of his appeal for want of prosecution. I so hold as having noted to be out of time in filing the said submission in chief, the only remedy to him was to seek for extension of time to so do. However, the appellant herein did not find any need to exhaust that remedy instead proceeded to file his submissions out time. It is for that reason and the above cited authorities I hold he has to suffer from the consequences for filing the submissions out of time. Consequently this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs. Order accordingly. Dated at Dodoma this 13th of September, 2024. E. E. KAKOLAKI JUGDE 13/09/2024. Court: The Ruling has been delivered at Dodoma today on 13th day of September, 2024, in the presence of the Appellant in person and Mr. Denis Odhiambo, advocate for 1st and 2nd Respondents and Ms. Veradina Matikila, Court clerk. Right of appeal explained. E. E. KAKOLAKI JUGDE 13/09/2024. 7