ISSA IDD KAUZU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 25514 OF 2024 ISSA IDD KAUZU ……………………..………………………………………. APPLICANT VERSUS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF AL-IJUMAA MOSQUE ………….. RESPONDENT RULING 4/12/2024 & 14/2/2025 ROBERT, J. The applicant, Issa Idd Kauzu, has filed this application under section 41(1) and (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216 R.E. 2019, and section 14(1) and (2) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E. 2019, seeking an extension of time to lodge an appeal against the judgment and decree delivered by the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mwanza in Land Application No. 263 of 2022. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, in which he deposes that he had initially filed Land Appeal No. 000028629 of 2023 before this Court. However, the appeal was struck out on 3rd April 2024 for being incompetent due to the omission of a copy of the judgment 1 and decree. Thereafter, the applicant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 13938 of 2024 seeking an extension of time, but on 24th September 2024, he prayed to withdraw the said application with leave to refile, leading to the present application. The application was heard inter partes, with the applicant being represented by Mr. Alex Luoga, learned counsel, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Maduhu Maduhu, learned counsel. Mr. Luoga submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was technical rather than actual, as the applicant was actively pursuing his right of appeal. He further contended that the applicant had acted diligently and within a reasonable time. Mr. Maduhu opposed the application, arguing that the applicant’s initial appeal was time-barred by fourteen (14) days and that the applicant had failed to account for this period of delay. He contended that the failure to attach a copy of the judgment and decree was due to negligence on the applicant’s part. 2 The main issue for determination is whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant an extension of time to file an appeal. A critical issue raised by the respondent is whether the applicant’s initial appeal was filed within time. However, this Court finds that the issue of whether the initial appeal was filed within time is not one that should be determined in an application for an extension of time. The competence and timeliness of the prior appeal were matters that ought to have been addressed in the proceedings leading to its striking out, or in an appropriate application challenging such findings. It is settled law that an application for an extension of time must be determined based on whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay. This Court is not the proper forum to determine whether the previous appeal was filed on time, as doing so would amount to revisiting a matter that was not conclusively determined in the present application. Instead, this Court must focus on whether the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the current application. 3 From the records, the applicant’s delay appears to have been technical in nature, arising from procedural defects in the earlier appeal. The Court takes judicial notice that technical delays—where a party has been actively pursuing a matter in court—have been recognized as a valid ground for granting an extension of time, as held in Fortunatus Masha v. William Shija & Another [1997] TLR 154. Additionally, the period of delay between the withdrawal of the previous application and the filing of this application is only twelve (12) days, which is not inordinate. The applicant acted diligently by promptly filing the present application after withdrawing Misc. Civil Application No. 13938 of 2024. In light of the foregoing, and considering that this Court is not the proper forum to determine whether the previous appeal was filed on time, I find that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the application is hereby granted, and the applicant is allowed to file an appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling. It is so ordered. K.N. ROBERT JUDGE 14.2.2025 4