juma mshihiri vs gabriel andrew and others 2021 tzhclandd 6705 30 april 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 119 OF 2019 (Arising from Misc. Application No. 138 of 2018) JUMAA MSHIHIRI.. C.. \ • APPLICANT \ VERSUS X v\ GABRIEL ANDREW ALOYCE MAMKU X^-2TRE^0NDENT \. / DAVID A NOBLE RESPONDENT JOHN PETER MAJURA RESPONDENT Last Order: 10/02/2021 / / ' \ Ruling date:30/04/2021 rl /x 'W .X \A (RUim^X \\ x\ ^ MANGO,J. '/ ( \ ' The applicant'seeks l,eaye ofthis Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzanla^galnst the d^lsloP ofthis Court In Misc. Land Application No. 138 of 2018.1 The appHcatlonNs^by way of Chamber summons made under section 47(2) dfte Land C)lsputes Courts Act supported by an affidavit sworn by the \ i. 'Vj applicant, Jufhaa M§|iihlrl. The application Is contested by the respondents who filed a joint counter affidavit to that effect. The applicant was represented by Mr. Lucco Stephen, learned advocate while the respondents were represented by Mr. Salwello Kumwenda learned advocate. On l?^'^ November 2020, this Court ordered the application to be argued by way of written submissions. % In his submission in chief, the applicant's counsel adopted the contents of the affidavit sworn in support of this application to form part of his submission. He mentioned the issue that need to be considered by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania to be inclusion of the period spent by the applicant waiting for copy of decree from the Tribunal in computing limit for appeal. He argued that, in determining Misc. Land Application No. 138 of 2018, this Court did not exclude time spent waiting for a copy of judgement f%m the Trial Tribunal. He cited section 19(2) of the Law of Limitations, Act, [CaiH8,9 R.E 2019] and the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania::.in th^feas^f The Registered Trustees of Marian Faith "HealingCentre" Wa^'amaombi " "■Vp'' versus The Registered Trustees ofithe Catholic iburch Sumbawanga Diocese, Civil Appeal No. 64 of €007 Cluitfll Appeal clfcranzania at Dar es salaam and argued that tin;pppent%||tin^||r copiesPof the decision to be appealed against need to bl'excluded. Hi||;S of l|e view that this Issue worth to be determined by the Codrt of ApiDeaL^ ^ 5. ' •> In his reply submission fhe;>resp6^pdents counsel admitted that Judgement of tribunal wasllljvered in NSf|mber'^2017, was ready for collection on 14^^ Februaii®T8^atliltff Applican^flled his application for extension of time on Mafe 2018?%® aSlied that, the applicant has not accounted for the delay of 20 3iys from wtti he received the copy of judgement from the Tribunal to ■ ■ ■ " ■ ' ' the date ofi|iling hi^ipplication for extension of time. The learned counsel did not submit on whether time spent awaiting for copy of judgement from the tribunal need to be excluded in computing time limit for appeals or not. From the submissions by both parties, it is not disputed that judgement of the tribunal was not supplied to the parties on time as it was supplied to them on 14th February 2018 when time limit for appeal has already expired. It is also not disputed that it took 20 days for the applicant to lodge his application for extension of time from when he received the copy of judgement. The issue is whether time spent by the appiicant waiting for the copy of judgement need to be excluded from computation of time limit for appeal or not. This Court has already determined the application for extension of time lodged by the appiicant thus it cannot determine the issue raised by the applicant in this application. For that reason, leave is hereby granted to the appii'cant to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. ^■0 %ir klPilfe'.. \ Ws /£// JUmGE - imGE 30/04/1021 11I2 m?' Is III ■■iIh