MAYONA JAMES VS RICHARD MWASALEMBA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MWANZA SUB REGISTRY) AT MWANZA LAND REVISION NO 10783 OF 2024 (Originating from the Judgment of Land Application No 50 of2021 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Sengerema at Sengerema) MAYONA JAMES (the administratix of the estate of the late Ngariri Mabirika Ngulungwa)................................. APPLICANT VERSUS RICHARD MWASALEMBA................................................... 1st RESPONDENT BAHATI LUHENTA...................................................................................... 2ndRESPONDE MAGILETI LUHENTA.................................................................................. 3rdRESPONDEN JUMA LUHENTA.......................................................................................... 4thRESPONDE RULING 3dh & 3Cfh October, 2024 A. M ATU MA, J. When this application came for hearing M/S Mabula Great learned advocate for the 1st Respondent rose to argue a preliminary objection to the effect that this application was filed on 12/05/2024 which is six days out of the prescribed time limit for Revision Applications. The Applicant argued that she did not lodge this application on 12/05/2024 but on 07/05/2024 but^Kedid not take her receipts through i which she paid the filing fees. She thus prayed for adjournment to bring such receipt to prove that she lodged this application on 07/05/2024. The learned advocate M/S Mabula Great argued that even taking the filing date to be 07/05/2024 as contended by the applicant, this application shall still be out of time for one day. Having heard the parties as revealed Supra, I agree with M/S Mabula Great that counting from the date of the impugned decision on 08/03/2024 to 07/05/2024 when the applicant contends to have filed this application, it is sixty - one (61) days. The law governing time limitation prescribes that Revision Application must be filed within sixty days from the date of the decision. In that respect it is superfluous to adjourn this matter to await evidence of the applicant which is intending to prove that this application was filed on 07/05/2024 and not 12/05/2024 as such proof won't be helpful to her for obvious reason that it would be reducing the number of days for delay from six days to one day but the delay would still stand against her. The applicant has also conceded that her application was lodged one day out of the prescribed time. I therefore uphold the objection and rule out that this application is out of time and consequently dismiss it for being out of time. The applicant is at liberty to seek extension of time for her to refile her application in accordance to the law. No orders as to costs. It is so ordered. 30.10.2024 3