gerald m

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB-REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVISION NO. 10332 OF 2024 GERALD M. MSANGA ..............................................................…. APPLICANT VERSUS JIJI SAVINGS AND CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CO. LTD ………..………………………………...……..…… RESPONDENT (Arising from the compromise decree of the District Court of Temeke at Temeke in Civil Case No. 46 of 2019) RULING 24th and 26th March 2025 KISANYA, J.: The respondent, Jiji Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Co Ltd instituted a claim before the District Court of Temeke against the applicant, Gerald M. Msanga, for failure to repay a debt of TZS 41,979,479 arising from loan credits extended to him. On 7th February 2023, the parties herein filed a deed of settlement, which was adopted as the judgment of the trial court. Under the terms of the settlement, the applicant consented to pay the respondent TZS 22,100,000 as per agreed schedule. Consequently, the trial court issued a decree on the same date to that effect. 1 Desiring to challenge the validity of the deed of settlement and the subsequent decree, the applicant moved this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 606 of 2023, praying for an extension of time to file a revision. On 19th April 2024, this Court granted the requested extension and ordered the applicant to file the revision within fourteen (14) from the date of the ruling. Acting upon that decision, the applicant, on 6th May 2024, filed this revision under sections 79 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap. 33, R.E. 2019) and section 45 of the Magistrates' Courts Act [Cap. 11, R.E. 2019]. Through the amended chamber summons filed on 24th July 2024, the applicant moves the Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of the District Court of Temeke in Civil Case No. 46 of 2019, with a view to determining the legality, regularity, and propriety of the proceedings, judgment, orders, and decree. The applicant further prays for the revision of the compromise decree, an order for the respondent to pay punitive damages as assessed by the Court, an award of compensatory damages, costs of the application, and any other relief the Court finds just and equitable. 2 After being served with the amended chamber summons and supplementary affidavit, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the application for revision and, in addition, submitted a notice of preliminary objection advancing two points of law as follows: 1. That the application is hopelessly time barred. 2. That the application contravenes with the order of the court. As required by the practice of the Court, the preliminary objection was scheduled to be heard first before addressing the main case. The hearing session was conducted virtually, with Mr. Lawrence Jackson Mwasanga, learned Advocate for the applicant, and Ms. Lilian Rutaiganwa, learned Advocate for the respondent, in attendance. The proceedings began with Ms. Rutaiganwa, who raised the preliminary objection. Her submission was brief and straightforward. Referring to the ruling of this Court, she argued that the revision should have been filed within 14 days from 19th April 2024. The learned Counsel contended that the applicant filed the revision on 6th May 2024, which was beyond the time extended by the Court for three days. Ms. Rutaiganwa further contended that on 4th June 2024, the Court granted the applicant leave to file an amended revision application 3 within seven days. However, the applicant once again failed to adhere to the timeline, filing the application two days past the allowed period. Contending that both the original revision and the amended application were time barred and in contravention of the Court’s order the learned Counsel prayed that the preliminary objection be upheld. In response, Mr. Mwasanga took the floor and opposed the preliminary objection. He argued that the 14-days extension granted by the Court contained two public holidays namely, Union Day on 26th April 2024 and Labour Day on 1st May 2024. Citing the case of Renaltus Mponzi vs Asha Hemed Idd (Administrator of Estate of the Late Hemed Idd Bomba), Land Appeal No. 161 of 2021, he argued that the two days are excluded from time computation. In addition, he argued that the last day for filing fell on a weekend, which is legally excluded. The learned counsel also cited the case of Barclays Bank T. Ltd vs Jacob Muro (Civil Appeal 357 of 2019) [2020] TZCA 1875 (26 November 2020), where it was held that the first day is excluded in time computation. Furthermore, he relied on the decision in Khalid Mwisongo vs Ms Unitrans T Ltd (Civil Appeal 56 of 2011) 2012 TZCA 4 248 (20 April 2012), arguing that amendments to pleadings do not cause injustice to the other party. Mr. Mwasanga went on to contend that the revision pertains to a fundamental issue of jurisdiction. He thus urged the Court to invoke the Oxygen Principle and determine the matter on its merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds. Based on these arguments, Mr. Mwasanga requested the Court to dismiss the preliminary objection with costs. In her rejoinder, Ms. Rutaiganwa acknowledged the presence of two public holidays within the granted period but argued that the remaining days were not public holidays. She maintained that if the applicant found the time insufficient, the correct course of action would have been to apply for an extension, rather than filing out of time. The learned Counsel reiterated that the applicant had disregarded the Court’s order by failing to comply with the time limit. She again prayed for the preliminary objection to be upheld, or alternatively, for the revision to be withdrawn. The key issue for determination is whether the revision was filed within the extended 14-days period. 5 As a starting point, the ruling of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 606 of 2023 granted an extension of 14 days, reckoning “from the date” of the ruling, which was delivered on 19th April 2024. Under section 60(1)(b) of the Interpretation of Laws Act [Cap. 1 R.E. 2019], the date of the ruling (19th April 2024) is excluded from the computation of time. This makes the deadline for filing the revision 3rd May 2024. However, as correctly argued by the respondent’s counsel, the applicant filed his revision on 6th May 2024, three days beyond the extended period. It is not disputed that the extended period contained two public holidays (Union Day on 26th April 2024 and Labour Day on 1st May 2024). However, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Mwasanga that these two public holidays should be excluded from the computation of time. My reading of Section 60(1) of the Interpretation of Laws Act (supra) suggests that it explicitly excludes public holidays or weekends, but only if they fall on the last day of the period within which an act is required to be done. This position was affirmed in Barclays Bank T. Ltd (supra), which was referred to me by Mr. Mwasanga, in which this Court initially held that weekends and public holidays are excluded in computing time and proceeded to exclude them in determining the 6 limitation period. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified the correct position, stating that: “…while both section 60 (2) of the ILA and Rule 4 (2) of the Rules provide for exclusion of non-working days (Saturday, Sunday and public holiday) if the last day of any prescribed period of limitation falls on any such day, none of the said provisions has the effect of excluding all weekends and public holidays falling within a particular period as suggested in the above holding. Thus, it means the exclusion by Nyerere, J. of five days falling on weekends throughout the period of thirty- three days was manifestly erroneous.” (Emphasize supplied) Given the above position set by the Court of Appeal, the argument presented by the applicant’s Counsel regarding the exclusion of public holidays within the computation period is legally untenable. As previously noted, the law only allows for such exclusion when the final day of the period falls on a weekend or public holiday. In this case, the last day was 3rd May 2024, which was neither a weekend nor a public holiday. Consequently, I find merit in the respondent’s Counsel argument that the revision was filed beyond the extended timeframe. 7 Mr. Mwasanga has urged the Court to apply the oxygen principle in considering the revision, asserting that it involves a fundamental issue of jurisdiction. While recognizing the significance of substantive justice, it is settled law, and requires no citation of authority, that the oxygen principle or overriding objective cannot override fundamental legal rules and procedural requirements. Time limitations play a crucial role in legal proceedings by promoting certainty and efficiency in the administration of justice, and ensuring that cases are resolved in a timely and orderly manner. The consistent position of this Court and the Court of Appeal is that compliance with procedural time limits is mandatory, and any request for an extension is considered at the court’s discretion upon a proper showing of sufficient cause for the delay. For instance, in Benedict Mumello vs. Bank of Tanzania (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2002) [2006] TZCA 12 (12 October 2006), the Court of Appeal underlined that an application for an extension of time is entirely at the court’s discretion and may only be granted when the applicant establishes that the delay was due to sufficient cause. 8 In light of this position, the applicant’s failure to adhere to the Court’s prescribed timeframe precludes reliance on the oxygen principle after filing the revision out of time. Taking into account the circumstances outlined, the preliminary objection is upheld, and the revision is struck out with costs, as it was filed outside the extended time frame without leave. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 26th day of March 2025. S.E. KISANYA JUDGE Delivered virtually this 26th day of March 2025, in the presence of Ms. Lilian Rutaiganwa, learned Advocate for the respondent, who also held brief for Mr. Lawrence Jackson Mwasanga, learned Advocate for the applicant. Right of appeal has been explained. S.E. KISANYA JUDGE 26/03/2025 9