LOSHILU KARAINE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [ARUSHA SUB- REGISTRY] AT ARUSHA MISC- LAND APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2014 (Original Application No. 187 of2005 ofArusha District Land and Housing Tribunal before Hon. CP. Kamugisha, Chairman) LOSHILU KARAINE...................................................................................... IstAPPLICANT JOHN MAKUPA.............................................................................................. 2ndAPPLICANT JOSEPH ANGERSON MUSHI......... ........................................... 3rd APPLICANT SAITEU LAIZER........................................................................................... ..4thAPPLICANT VERSUS ABRAHAM KAAYA (as Administrator of Estate of GLADNESS KAAYA)................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 24 & 24/03/2025 I.C. MUGETA, J; This application was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2014. On 02/07/2024, it was restored. More than ten years has been spent in the justice seeking process before the substantive case is heard. It is an application for extension of time for the appellant to challenge, by way of appeal, the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Arusha in Application No. 187/2005 dated 18/09/2014. 1 1^3*^ The reason for the delay to file an appeal is delayed supply of the lower tribunal's records particularly the proceedings which by 29/12/2014 when the application was filed, had not been supplied. The judgment was supplied on 19/12/2014. Those facts are per paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit supporting the application. In the counter affidavit, the respondent avers that the applicant was negligent in the pursuit of his rights. That the period of delay from when the judgment was delivered to 19/12/2014 is uncounted for. This is per paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. Parties filed written submissions to support their respective side of the case. The applicant is represented by Christina Kimale while the respondent is being served by John Shirima. Both counsel filed the respective written submissions. Christina Kimale has maintained that the delayed documents resulted into failure to file the appeal in time. In his submission, John Shirima has argued that the applicant never requested for the document as their letter which is Annex "Ann A" to the affidavit was addressed to the District Registrar not the Chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. He further argued that the applicant did not follow up to get the copies as there is no evidence of reminder letters. 2 While I agree with Counsel for the respondent that the letter requesting for copies of the documents necessary for appeal purpose was addressed to the District Registrar, I find that the same was served to the chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. The proof is the stamp on that letter to acknowledge receipt. It is not of the District Registrar but that of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. The wrong title of the letter, in my view, was, therefore, a typing error. It does not matter so long the letter reached the intended destination. On making follow up of the request by reminder letters, I am not convinced that the applicant was negligent as alleged by counsel for the respondent. Indeed, there are no reminder letters filed but that move would always be useless if the documents were not ready. In this case the document were not ready until on 19/12/2014. The applicant has stated that the judgment was supplied on 19/12/2014. This is the same date when the decree which is part of "annex B" to the affidavit was signed. If the decree was signed on 19/12/2014 and on the same day the applicant collected it, that is a proof of close follow up. Consequently, it is my view that the period from 18/09/2014 - 19/12/2014 has been well accounted for. 3 This application was filed at the lower tribunal on 29/12/2014 which is ten days after obtaining copy of the judgment. Reasonably, that period was spent on the preparation of this application. It is a reasonable time by any standard of measurement. It cannot be termed as inordinate delay. In the event, I hold that the applicant has demonstrated a good cause for the delay and accounted for each period of the delay. The application is allowed. The intended appeal to be filed within 21 days from the date of this order. Each party to bear own costs. I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 24/03/2025 Court: Ruling delivered in chambers in the presence of Respondent and his Advocate Mr. John Shirima also holding brief of Mrs. Christina Kimale, Advocate for the Applicant but in the absence of Applicants. Sgd: I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 24/03/2025 4