Jumann999999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB-REGISTRY AT TABORA REVIEW NO. 05 OF 2023 (Arising from Misc. Land Application No. 25 of2023 before the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora and Original Land Case Application No. 56 of2022 before the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora) JUMANNE SIZYA..................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS JEMES MASONGANYA SIZYA.................................. RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 23/04/2024 Date of Ruting: 30/04/2024 KADILU, J, The applicant filed in this court the present application urging the court to review its ruling and order in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 25 of 2023 which was delivered on 03/10/2023. The applicant urged the court to correct an error alleged to have been manifestly apparent on the face of this court's records in the said ruling. The applicant in his application advanced the following reasons: 1. That, the learned Judge erred in law to determine the applicant's application on merit without first determining the point of preliminary objection which was raised by the respondent. 2. That, the teamed Judge erred in law to dismiss the applicant's application instead of striking it out if the preliminary objection was sustained. After the respondent was served with the memorandum of review, his Advocate Mr. Kelvin Kayaga conceded to the application as he argued that there was an error on the face of the record after the court determined the application forextension of time instead of the preliminary objection. i I have keenly gone through and considered the submissions by both parties. One of the key issues to be first asked is whether the court has been property moved. This is basic for the court to be satisfied that the applicant had given justifiable and good reasons for this court to exercise its review power. A preliminary objection was on the point of law to wit that the application was misconceived, bad in law, and an abuse of the court process. Supporting the objection, Mr. Kelvin argued that under Section 19 (2) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap. 89 R.E. 2019], the day on which the impugned judgment was delivered and the period spent in obtaining a copy of the judgment are excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal. Ms. Stella refuted the proposition by Mr. Kelvin that she sought for extension of time which she was still having. She maintained that since the ruling was delivered on 17/02/2023, the 45 days within which the applicant would file his appeal expired on 31/03/2023. She explained that the only remedy that was available for the applicant was to apply for an extension of time as he did. The learned Advocate argued that filing the appeal after 31/03/2023 would mean risking it being struck out for being time-barred. In the end, the court found that the applicant had neither shown a good cause for the delay nor had he pointed out any irregularity justifying the court to grant the application. For these reasons, the application was dismissed, a decision that irritated the applicant. Looking at what transpired in dealing with the preliminary objection, it is evident that there was an error on the face of the record attracting the exercise of this court's review powers. Regarding the second ground, I subscribes to the submission made by Ms. Stella Nyaki that the suit was 2 not heard on merit hence the same was required to be struck out instead of being dismissed. Therefore, I hereby correct the court's order to read, that the preliminary objection is sustained and the Vise. Land Application No. 25 of2023 is struck out. In the upshot, the review is successful to the stated extent. Each party shall bear its costs of this matter. It is so decided. JUDGE 30/04/2024 The ruling delivered in chamber on the 30th Day of April 2024 in the presence of both parties. JUDGE 30/04/2024. 3