marwa gimero vs maharamu abdallah 2021 tzhclandd 91 22 april 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO. 596 OF 2020 (Arising from Appeal No. 40 o f 2018 o f the DLHT Itata atllala) MARWA GIMERO....................................................APPLICANT VERSUS MAHAMURU ABDALLAH......... ......... ..... ............. RESPONDENT RULING 30/03/2021 & 22/04/2021 Masoud. 3. The applicant herein is aggrieved by the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Ilala exercising its appellate jurisdiction in Appeal No. 40 of 2018. The decision the applicant is aggrieved of was undisputedly delivered on 6/12/2018 and a copy of the said judgment and its decree were certified on, and hence ready for collection by 22/06/2020. The present application for extension of time made under section 38(1) of the Land Disputes7Courts Act, cap. 216 R.E 2019 by the applicant was instituted on 20/10/2020. Both parties were unrepresented. The application was thus conveniently conducted by filing written submissions. Both parties, dutifully, complied with the filing schedule, hence this ruling. I must point out at the outset that the only reason shown in the affidavit supporting the application for extension of time, which reason was equally expounded in the written submissions in chief filed in support of the application, was that there was delay in obtaining the copy of the judgment and the decree. This reason was disputed by the respondent as is clear in his counter affidavit and written submissions in reply. The arguments emerging from the respondent's submissions are that the applicant was just negligent in making follow up for collection of the relevant document, there was as such no evidence for any follow up made and averred in the affidavit, and that even if there were such delay, there were no reasons given by the applicant to account for the delay between 22/06/2020 when the copy of the judgment was certified and hence ready for collection, and 20/10/2020 when the instant application was filed in this court. The issue therefore is whether the applicant has shown sufficient reason for extension of time. In relation to the reason advanced by the applicant and disputed by the respondent, the issue is whether the alleged delay in getting the certified copy of the judgment and decree is established on the record and is accordingly sufficient to warrant granting of the extension of time sought. As will be clear afterwards, my answer to this question is in the negative. The law is settled that in considering whether or not to grant extension of. time, the court must consider the following: The length of delay; whether the period of delay is inordinate; reasons adduced for the delay and whether they amount to good cause; whether each day of the delay has been accounted for; whether there was inaction, lack of diligence, negligence, inadvertence or laxity; whether there is an allegation of illegality in the impugned decision; whether the alleged illegality is not just an error in the decision; whether the alleged illegality is apparent on the face of the record; and whether the alleged illegality is of sufficient importance. It is clear to me that there is no dispute that the certified copies of judgment and decree were ready for collection by 20/6/2020 when they were respectively so certified and extracted. Assuming that the applicant was indeed in difficult of getting the copy of the judgment when delivered on 18/12/2018, he still has to account for the delay between 20/6/2020 and the date on which his application was filed which is 20/10/2020. Unfortunately, neither the applicant's affidavit, nor his reply to counter affidavit and nor his submission attempted to account for such period of delay between 20/6/2020 and 20/10/2020. The preoccupation of the applicant was only on the delay in getting the copy of the judgment and its decree. This reason, I am afraid, cannot support the entire length of the delay. It is therefore insufficient as no account was given for the whole period of the delay. In the upshot, the application for extension of time to appeal out of time is not supported by good and sufficient reason. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. Dated and Delivered at Dar es Salaam this 22nd day of April 2021. 4