MUSA MASWA BUGALAMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB REGISTRY AT MUSOMA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 000031567 OF 2024 REFERENCE NUMBER 202412151000031567 (Arising from Application No. 57 of2023 District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara at Musoma.) MUSA MASWA BUGALAMA.................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS Kashigwa Lubapula Kashigwa (Msimamizi wa Mirathi ya Marehemu Lubapula Kashigwa Mazoya)...................... RESPONDENT RULING 27th March & 10 April 2025 M. L. KOMBA, J This is an application for extension of time so that applicant may file an appeal to the high court. The application is filed under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 R.E 2002 and is supported by affidavit of Musa Maswa Bugalama, the applicant. Previously applicant and respondent had a land dispute which was file as Land Application No. 57 of 2023 at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara at Musoma (the DLHT) Page 1 of 5 which was decided in favour of the respondent. Applicant appealed to this court in Land Appeal No. 19598 which was struck out in November 2024. Still intend to appeal but he was out of time hence this application. When the matter was scheduled for hearing, applicant was represented by Mr. Thomas Manyama Makongo and respondent had a legal of Mr. Edson Philipo who was holding brief of Advocate Sululu with instruction to proceed. Mr. Manyama started by submitting that the applicant was dissatisfied by the decision of the DLHT and has intention to appeal. He prayed affidavit to be adopted and proceeded that, at paragraph 5 and 6 applicant has reasons for the application that from 29/11/2024 when the appeal was struck out to 12/12/2024 applicant was struggling to raise his economy so that he may appeal and before that, he spend time prosecuting the appeal which was struck out in 29/11/2024. He prayed the application to be allowed. Resisting the application Mr. Philipo started by clarification that it not disputed that there was an appeal in this court ( Musoma Sub Registry) Page 2 of 5 with reference number 17598 which was struck out on 29/11/2024. However, he submitted that applicant is supposed to say where he was since November 2024 to the time he lodge this application. He was of the position that applicant failed to account for days. Further attack the reason listed by applicant that he was raising money, he insisted that is not reasonable ground for this court to entertain bearing in mind that he failed to prove if he applied for exemption. The same was deponed at paragraph 6 of counter affidavit that economic constrain has never been a good cause for extension of time. He went on submitting that the reason forwarded is not supposed to remain in court record bearing in mind that this is the court of record. He prayed the application to be dismissed. During rejoinder Mr. Manyama clarified that applicant deponed he was struggling and managed to file this application and the time spent is less than a month. I have given due consideration to both party's submission for and against this application. As a matter of principle, it is entirely in the discretion of the court whether to grant or refuse an application for Page 3 of 5 extension of time as it is in section 361 (2) of the CPA. The said provision bestows the High Court with discretion in the following terms: 'The High Court may, for good cause, admit an appeal notwithstanding that the period of limitation prescribed in this section has elapsed.' It is trite that extension of time under the above provision is a matter of discretion on the part of the High Court but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and flexibly with due regard to the relevant facts of the particular case. Applicant depone that he was raising his economy before he file this application. That is the only reason forwarded for consideration in granting time. I am mindful that this court has to use discretion wisely, but I have to consider as to whether the reasons adduced constitute good cause to this application or otherwise. In his submission, Mr. Manyama did not clarify on anything apart that the application was filed within a month. I afraid if raising personal economy can be accepted as good cause for extension of time, if that could be accepter, courts will have endless litigation as any time party find has enough money may approach the court of law. My wisdom directs that, the reason Page 4 of 5 forwarded for consideration is not suffice and therefore the applicant failed to move this court to grant his prayers. I hereby dismiss application for want of merit. No order as to costs. DATED at MUSOMA on 10th April, 2025. Ruling delivered in chamber in the presence of applicant and respondent who were in person without representation. M. L. KOMBA Judge 10th April 2025 Page 5 of 5