19940623 TZHC Dar es Salaam2

IN TH2 ITIGTI COURT OF T,:mZJJ>TlL PC<) CDTIL !J'PE:iLo r'Oo 113 OF 1992 (FROM THE DECI3ION OF TJil DLJT..UC~.1 COJ.:i.T OF KINOJ:IDONI NL1 KISUTU IN" ruse., CDTYL .lLPPLIC~'.:I1=i:O}:J / lW1' 7 OF 1991) _ _ _ ........, L _.. ~: ./.J.JJY MORJJOO~ o o 6 • ct M• •a~.- •-"'~o,o,t1...,-o •·• •·• o-o•o·, f,PPE[,1~1.NT ~ 1SCJS ________ ....... /[DGMENT llb.e a.ppolla.nt filed ar. applicc.tion f o:-c· 2.crant of Letters of Aomi nj stration in respcot· ot the osta.to of a person ho: claimed was oalled ~ j a . F~ahcni, d.ccoascdo The su1Jjcrnt matter of tho estate was a, house on Plot 13 Lcm'Jor4 Stroot~ in Dr.:,:, os salnrun. 0 The respondent f ilod OJ.1 objootion and wont on to :prove bcfo:rc tho trial Primary Court that tho said house bolo~ to his lc..to g:;:r,:ndmothor, one Hadijn H8)'Ilisi. lifter oonsido:ring al~ tho ovid.onc0 · tho triol Primary court upheld tho objection n.."ld simisf:t";)il. tho npplicGtion for tho grant. h Primary Court dolivcrod. its 1.."L."l~ jud0 mcnt on 8th June, 1991. ~ appellant had 30 dcys within -rhich to appeal age.inst tho d.ooisi~ ~Q did not do so within tho proscribod °li,mo, So ho OJ>pliod f-:xr e~ntion of time within which to do so. In his ruling the lottt'nod :Oiati:.-ict Magistrate obso:rvod tb.n.t tho ap~ant took no notion until 8,h ilUt;.,"'US\, 199lJ that is after a period of Ltx;ty dayso ~ ~ District Magis~to d.isoovm-dd. ~ t th0 appellant ha4, a:ppool ns of 8·4 Augu.st, 1991. . t ~ alSQ ~oid Vho raquis.it foe for tho ~ ~ho a.~ollnnt was called upon to show oo.uso wl\} tho applioq.t:i.t>n should. bo olJ,.owedJ ho gave tvro contradioti:,ry norsions\ At first h9J oonto~ed thn.t ho had doloyoo to lodge tho apj,)eru. b0CaUl1.o ho had ~ellell. si~ Tb.a~ Statement is contain~ j,n his lotter by which.. lie fiJ.¢ an ~plication tor oxtontion of time. When ho was ~ea., j,,rl t~. oqurse ot houril\3 tile application, about 11hat had dolayod him ho so.14 h? had. tu.a.cl hio nppoal boforo the 8th +UlgllS'i.t 1991. h learllOd ~tjct \ I 2 Ma&istra.to found tho t:1osc ?ontradiotion wo:,:,c fntal to tho applioatiollJ far if tho appollc;nt had filed o.n appo::i.1 in ti;iu thoro was no point why. ho hod to sock extontion of time to file another o,ppcul in tho same case. I ogreoo Tl.10 a.ppollo.nt has repoo;l;od ·;ho sc1.mo contentions in his nppocll. A fto:;:- oxwnining tho record of iho lower cott.:-ts, ;J.nd for the ronsons whioh 1 I havo sot forth a:bovo, I find :10 ~.o~'it in thi:.:; a.ppcru.o La.stly, nono of tho portic s was proscnt r,t tho hearing of this appool•. Efi:orts to serve thorn have not boen successful o.nd. this apponl, having been filed in 1992, is a fairl;r old. matter. I havo thorofo:r.o decided. ' to dotorm:Lne it in toms of tho proviso ,to scc·liion 35 of tho ,Mllgisu-ates Oo'Ul't A ct, 1984, . ") \/ In the ·final ano.ly:i.ais tho tiPI>Ocl i:::: d..i.smissod with costs hara and in tJJ.o oou.i.---t below. ,,