land appeal 4880

v IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) * AT PAR ES SALAAM ; ' LAND APPEAL NO. 4880 OF 2024 . ' . ■ . /<•;'(Originating from Application No. 104 of 2023, Ubungo District Land and Housing Tribunal) • V ?/KRISTABELA MATEI MAKWINYA.......................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS JENNY JOSEPH MWENURA................................................................ RESPONDENT _ RULING ■’TV■ ' ' ' ' ■, 17th-to'r?April, 2024 . ... . . vv; •;■■•.■ 'E.B. LUVANDA, J V The Respondent named above raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is . ■ filed beyond the period of forty-five days as prescribed under section 41(2) of. )'.■'■ the Land District (sic, Dispute) Courts Act, Cap 216 of 2019. Mr. Habibu Kassim Habibu learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that the ruling was delivered on 14/11/2023, arguing computing time of forty-five days, end on 28/12/2023. He submitted that this appeal was filed on 7/03/2024, well beyond the period of forty-five days.. He submitted that the certified copy of a . ruling was issued on 2/02/2024, arguing for the time to be excluded in ; . computing time for lodging an appeal, there must be a written request for the supply of documents necessary for an appeal purpose, citing Nicodemus .1 Lusambo (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Julius Lusambo) vs . Gerada Zakaria (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Zakaria Lusambo), Civil Appeal No. 486 of 2022, CAT. In reply, Ms. Agnes Dominick learned Counsel for Appellant distinguished ■'-Nicodemus Lusambo (supra), on explanation that therein it was not known as to when the Respondent in that matter was supplied with the judgment and . decree, argued the same were dated and certified on the same date in which the judgment was delivered. On my part, I go along the argument of the learned Counsel for Appellant that the obiter of the apex Court in Nicodemus Lusambo (supra) is inapplicable in the circumstances of this matter. This is for obvious reason that herein, as per the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent, the impugned ruling was . delivered on 14/11/2023 and certified on 2/02/2024 along drawn order which : was extracted on that later date. This appeal was filed on 1/03/2024, which is . within the range of a period of automatic exclusion of time when spent waiting for crucial documentations for purpose of appeal. In Nicodemus Lusambo. (supra), the apex Court imported the dictum and call for a written request for supply of documentations for appeal purpose for reasons stated by the learned : Counsel for Appellant that it was because the judgment and decree were dated. portraying to have been certified on the same date on which it was delivered. 3