hamphrey jomo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB-REGISTRY AT TABORA MISC. LAND APPLICATION No. 25797 OF 2023 (Arising from Civil AppealNo. 249 of2022, Court OfAppeal of Tanzania at Tabora, Arising from Miso. Land Application No. 14 of2020, High Court of Tanzania at Tabora and Misc. Land Application No. 18 of 2019 from S.B. Nsana - RM) HUMPHREY JOMO TUMBO.......... .. ............ APPLICANT VERSUS JANE ELIASTUMBO .................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order 1/06/2024 Date of Delivery: 02/07/2024 KADILU, J. The applicant has applied for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal against the ruling of this court. A brief background of the matter is that in 2019, the applicant lodged an application before this court seeking for extension of time within which to file an appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora. The court dismissed the application with costs after having found that the applicant did not adduce sufficient reasons for the delay. Aggrieved by the decision, the applicant applied for leave to challenge it before the Court of Appeal. The said application for leave was heard and granted by S.B. Nsana, RM with extended jurisdiction. Thereafter, the applicant filed his appeal to the Court of Appeal. It was, however, struck out with costs for being incompetent as the learned S.B. Nsana was found to have no power to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was issued on 02/10/2023. The applicant filed this application on 21/11/2023 and was supported by an affidavit affirmed by i Mr. Samwel Ndanga, his Advocate. The respondent did not file a counter affidavit. On the day of the hearing of the application, the applicant was represented by the learned Counsel Mr. Samwel Ndanga whereas the respondent appeared in person without legal representation. Mr. Samwel Ndanga prayed for the court to adopt his affidavit in substitution of oral submissions. On her part, the respondent informed the court that she was not opposing the application. Therefore, the question for determination by this court is whether the application is meritorious or not. Mr. Ndanga stated in the affidavit that the reason for the delay was beyond the applicant's control. He contended that the High Court's decision was illegal as the application was determined before resolving a preliminary objection. Although the applicant failed to account for each day of delay from 02/10/2023 to 21/11/2023, he has alleged an irregularity on the face of the impugned decision. In Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Services v. Devram P. Vatambhia [1992] TLR 387, it was held that even where the applicant has failed to establish all other factors for the extension of time, if the court feels that there are other reasons such as the existence of the point of law of sufficient importance, it becomes duty-bound to extend the time so that the matter can be looked into by the Court of Appeal. As such, I see no reason to deny the applicant an extension of time within which to lodge the notice of appeal. Accordingly, the applicant is granted the extension of time to file the intended notice of appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling. Given the fact that the application was not contested, I make no order as to the costs. 2 It is so ordered. ILU,MJ. JUDGE 02/07/2024 The ruling delivered in chamber on the 2nd Day of July, 2024 in the presence of Mr. Samwel Ndanga, Advocate for the applicant. DILU, M.J. JUDGE 02/07/2024 3