Husna Joseph Bugaya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB - REGISTRY

AT MUSOMA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 000030739 OF 2024 REFERENCE NUMBER. 202412051000030739 (Arising from Land Appeal No. 37 of2021 in HC Musoma (Kahyoza, J.) Misc Application Number 89 of2021 Originating from Land Application number 80 of2020 from District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara at Musoma)

BETWEEN HUSNA JOSEPH BUYAGA................................................ APPLICANT

VERSUS CHARLES MATOKE MAHINDI......................................... RESPONDENT

RULING 26th & 28th March, 2025 M. L. KO MBA, J. The present application is brought by way of chamber summons premised under section 11 (1) of Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141 R. E 2002 in which the above-named applicant is praying before this court the extension of time from which she can lodge notice of appeal in the Cout of Appeal of Tanzania out of time to challenge the decision on Land Appeal No. 37 of 2021 of High Court of Tanzania Musoma. On the other hand, the respondent didn't file counter affidavit to contest the application. Page 1 of 6 Briefly, respondent successful sued the applicant in District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara at Musoma in Land Application No. 80 of 2020 where the matter was decided in the favour of respondent and; applicant was ordered to vacate from the premise in dispute. Dissatisfied, applicant appealed to this court (Mahimbali, J.) in Land Appeal No. 37 of 2021 the appeal was dismissed for want of merit. Tirelessly applicant filed Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal with intention to appeal against Land Appeal No. 37 of 2021 and leave to appeal where she was granted and filed memorandum and record of appeal but she did not file certificate of delay, following that fault the appeal was withdrawn on 23/10/2024. Knowing that she is out of time she filed this application. During the hearing of this application, the applicant was

represented by Mr. Emmanuel Gervas, Advocate while the respondent had a legal service of Mr. John Manyama. It was Mr. Gervas submission that while at the DLHT respondent did not provide address of the disputed land and that is irregularity which has to be cured during an appeal. The application was filed contrary to regulation 3(2) of the Land Disputes Courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunal Regulations, GN No. 174 of 2003. He was of the Page 2 of 6 position that irregularity is one of the reasons to be considered by court in granting time as in Principal Secretary Minister of Defence and National Service vs Devram P. Valambia [1992] TLR 387 and the same position was in Saulo Malima vs Petro King'oni, Misc. Land Application No. 000029059 Of 2024 HC Musoma. He pointed another irregularity that the seller was not joined in that suit contrary to what was decided in the case of Juma Kadala vs Lawrent Mkande, 1983 TLR 103. He insisted that appellant was in court all the time as he filed appeal No. 158 of 2022 which was found incompetent. He prayed the applicant affidavit to be adopted as it has other issues to be considered including how applicant account for days of delay. He prayed the application to be granted with costs. Mr. Manyama was wondering if there was illegality in the DLHT, the only illegality which to his understand may alter the decision is on jurisdiction but

not demarcation. He posed a question as to what amount to illegality. He prayed this court to find there is no illegality and applicant has to account days of delay. Whatever the result will be, he resisted costs as because applicant is the one who want to appeal to the Court of Appeal and he finds unhealth for this court to grant costs. Page 3 of 6 During rejoinder Mr. Gervas defined illegality to include all necessary thing which make the matter to be not in order at any stage and it includes demarcation. If the Land form did not indicate demarcation, he insisted that is illegality. He clarified that applicant account days of delay in paragraph 13 of her affidavit. Granting time to applicant is discretion of this court and when a person praying for extension of time, he/she has to registered a good cause(s) sufficient to warrant the court to grant his prayer. See the case of Robert Scheltens vs Balden Norataran Varma & Others (Civil Application No 112 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 477 (3 May 2018), Rutagatina C.L vs The Advocates Committee & Another (Civil Application 98 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 143 (18 February 2011) and Philimon Mang'ehe t/a Bukine Traders vs Gesbo Hebron Bajuta (Civil Application No. 8 of 2016) [2016] TZCA 577 (20 October 2016). Thus, in present application the issue which I am going to look upon is whether the applicant herein established good cause. In the case of

Philimon Mang'ehe t/a Bukine Traders vs Gesbo Hebron Bajuta (supra) the Court of Appeal stated that; Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines good cause as legally sufficient reason. The term good cause is a relative one and is dependent upon the Page 4 of 6 prevailing circumstances of each case. There are no hard and fast rules to what can constitute good cause. In this application the applicant has registered two issues in her application: illegality and she has counted days of delay. Mr. Gervas submitted that land form did not indicate demarcation of the suit land contrary to regulation 3(2) of GN No. 174 of 2003. In this application subject matter a house and applicant called it matrimonial home. Another point of illegality was non joinder of the seller to the suit filed by respondent. Under the law that is not illegality to warrant extension of time. In her affidavit, applicant explained what happened from the time she withdraws her appeal to when she filed this application. That is among the requirement as was elaborated in Lyamuya Construction vs Board of Reg Trustee of Young Women Christ Association, Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 and Bushiri Hassan vs Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 3 of 2007 (all unreported). In the latter case the Court of Appeal underscored on the requirement of accounting each day of delay by holding that: Page 5 of 6 9 delay of

even a single day, has to be accounted for otherwise there would be no point of having rules prescribing periods within which certain steps have to be taken.' I consider how applicant spends time after withdrawal of the appeal which was filed to the Court of Appeal on 23/10/2024. At 13 paragraph applicant explains she spent 27 days from when the matter was withdrawn to when she filed this application. During that time, she engages advocate who prepared this application, applied for copy of Court of Appeal order which he received on 09/11/2024 and filed this application on 20/11/2024. I find that to be reasonable time and applicant managed to account how she spends the time. Having said so, I hold that the applicant has sufficiently registered good reason to be granted what she prayed. I hereby grant thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling to lodge notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. No order as to costs. DATED at MUSOMA this 28th day of March, 2025. K M. L. KOMBA Judge Page 6 of 6