Hassan Bakari vs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MOROGORO SUB-REGISTRY AT MOROGORO LAND APPEAL NO 17250 OF 2024 (Appeal from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Morogoro District at Morogoro in Miscellaneous Land Application No 1 of 2024 before Mmbando learned Chairman) BETWEEN HASSAN BAKARI APPELLANT Versus SUNGURA AMANI RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MRUMA,J. The Appellant Hassan Bakarl was the Applicant In Miscellaneous Land Application No 1 of 2024 which was Instituted before the District Land Tribunal for Morogoro District at Morogoro. It was an application for restoration of his Land Appeal No 139 of 2019 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29*^^ September 2020. The application for restoration was filed on 9^"^ January 2024, a period of about three years after the dismissal order. Upon being served with the Chamber Summons and its supporting affidavit the Respondent successfully raised preliminary objection on points of law that:- i. The District trial tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application which is hopelessly time barred; ii. That the application is bad in law and incompetent before the tribunal for being gross abuse of court processes; iii. That the Application is bad in law and incompetent before the tribunal for being res subjudice and res judicata. After hearing arguments from counsel for the parties, the learned tribunal chairman sustained preliminary objection No 1 and found that the application was hopelessly time barred. The learned chairman also upheld preliminary objection and found that the fact that the Applicant was represented by an advocate who is well versed with the requirements of the laws but they decided to file an application which was clearly out of time and without leave was an abuse of court processes. The appellant was aggrieved with the ruling of the presiding chairman and has appealed to this court on the following grounds: 1. That the trial chairperson erred in law and In fact in dismissing the Application of the Applicant and he failed to take into consideration the fact that all errors found was caused by negligence of the advocate who represented him; 2. That the trial chairperson erred in law and fact for delivering a ruling which punishes the Appellant to the great extent even though the mistakes which caused the Application to be dismissed was committed by hid advocate; 3. That the trial chairman erred in law and fact for failure to take into consideration the principle of overriding objective by accepting the tribunal to be tied up by technicalities; 4. That the trial chairperson erred in law and in fact by dismissing the application on preliminary objections which had no merits. At the hearing of this appeal the Appellant was represented by Mr Hassan Said Nchimbi, learned advocate while the Respondent was represented by Mr Baraka Lweeka also learned advocate. The appeal was argued by way of written submissions. From the submissions of the learned counsel there can be no dispute that the Appellant's appeal before the District Tribunal to wit; Appeal No 139 of 2019 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29^^ September 2020. There is also no dispute that an application to have that appeal restored was instituted about three years after the dismissal of the appeal and without leave. The appellant admits that the application was filed out of the prescribed time but he contends that that was the fault of his advocate and he should not be punished for the mistakes of his advocate. Without wasting much time of the court and the parties, much of the Appellant's complaint is geared towards his relationship with his advocate stating that his advocate's mistake should not visited on him. In law an advocate is an agent of his client. He has two basic duties to save namely duties of competent representation and diligent advocacy. Thus, when an advocate is acting on the client's behalf the client is bound by the advocate's decisions, action or failure to act. In the case of Jubilee Insurance Company Limited Versus Mohammed Sameer Khan Civil Application No 439/01 of 2020 the Court of Appeal held inter alia that the negligence of an advocate or his ignorance of the procedure is not an excuse and does not constitute a sufficient cause for extension of time. The reason why negligence of an advocate binds his client is not farfetched. The duty to choose competent advocate is of the client therefore by instructing an incompetent and bogus advocate the client must accept the result of his/her representation work. In the present appeal where the Appellant does not dispute the fact that his application for restoration of his appeal in the District tribunal was hopelessly time barred and that there was no leave sought and obtained to file it out of time, the complaint that was the mistake of his advocate does not constitute good ground of appeal. The Appeal is therefore accordingly dismissed with costs to the Respondent. A. R. MRUMA Q> \\ JUDGE 21 2 2025