herode shoo vs mavura swedi a legal representative of the estate of the deceased yona athumani mbaga 2022 tzhclandd 12653 10 november 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2022 HERODESHOO APPLICANT VERSUS MAVURA SWEDI (Suing as a Legal representative of the Estate of the deceased YONA ATHUMANI MBAGA RESPONDENT RULING Date oflast 0rder:29/09/2022 Date ofRuling:10/10/2022 T. N. MWENEGOHA,3. The applicant, being aggrieved by a decision of the Kinondoni District Land and Housing Tribunal has filed to this Court an Application for extension of time to appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal of Land Application No. 176 of 2017. The applicant was represented by advocate Dafael David and the respondent was represented by advocate Joseph Mandela Mapunda. Hearing of application was through written submissions. The applicant submitted to this Court that the Tribunal's Judgment was delivered on 23"^ May, 2022. That immediately after the said Judgement was delivered, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to request for copies of proceedings, Judgment and Decree through a letter dated 25^'^ May, 2022. That he received the requested copies on 14"^ July, 2022. However, the copies of the Judgment and Decree he received showed that the Judgment was deiivered 23/05/2022 and certified on 30^^ June, 2022 but the Decree was dated 23/05/2022 and extracted date was 30"^ June, 2021. Hence, he was given a defective Decree. Consequently, he wrote to the Tribunal 6"^ July, 2022 requesting rectification of the dates in the Decree. That, he received a corrected Decree on 8'^ Juiy, 2022 but unfortunately, it was a Friday and the foiiowing two days were public hoiidays (Saturday and Sunday). That as the appiicant was aiready out of time to appeai, he proceeded to fiie this application for extension of time to fiie his appeai out of time. The appiicant argued that, since the thai Tribunai failed to supply proper records to him in time as requested, he was unabie to proceed with the process of filing the appeai within the statutory period. That, he has a good course justifying his delay. The respondent, represented by advocate Joseph Mandela did not oppose the application. He informed this Court that it is true that the appiicant was deiayed by the Court and hence it is not their fauit. Having read and considered the submissions of the appeiiant. This Court is satisfied that the appiicant's deiay has been caused by a deiay in being suppiied with proper copies of Judgment and Decree as pieaded in the affidavit. This Court finds that the applicant was diligent in pursuing his rights and has shown good cause for his delay. In the end, the leave is hereby granted without costs. The Applicant shouid iodge her intended application within 21 days from the date of extraction of the copies of this ruling. It is so ordered. ENEGOHA oe c o JUDGE 10/10/2022 S y •k ■\ -f • ^ ^ ' .fc • ■: i.'-f