LAND APPEAL NO 13530 OF 2024 PATRICK KITOFU VS MODEST MLOBA AND ANOTHER

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT KIGOMA LAND APPEAL NO. 000013530 OF 2024 PATRICK KITOFU .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS MODESTA MLOBA NA ZABIA MLOBA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING J. NKWABI, J, 04 & 04/12/2024 The appellant lodged an application in the trial tribunal asking the trial tribunal to declare that he is lawful owner of the disputed piece of land. The trial tribunal held that the appellant had failed to prove the application. It dismissed the application with costs. The appellant filed this appeal seeking the reliefs thus: 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The decision of the lower tribunal be quashed and set aside. 3. Costs of this appeal. 4. Any other reliefs that this honourable Court deem fit and just to grant. Along with the reply to the petition of appeal, the respondent lodged a notice of preliminary objection having three limbs. For reasons that will be apparent shortly, I will only mention one limb which is: That the appeal is time barred. When the matter was called on for hearing of the preliminary objection, the parties addressed the preliminary objection by way of oral submissions. In submission in chief, the appellant adopted the preliminary objection and prayed the appeal be dismissed with costs. On his side, the appellant said, the appeal was lodged in time, else it would have not been admitted by the admission officer of the Court. The 1st respondent had nothing to submit in rejoinder submission. Page. 1 I have gone through the record. I have found that it is true that the appeal was filed outside the prescribed time of 45 days from the date of the trial tribunal’s decision. The appeal was filed on the 46th day after the judgment which was delivered on 23/04/2024. This appeal was filed on 08/06/2024, on Saturday. The requirement to abide by the limitation is well articulated in decisions of this Court and the Court of Appeal. For instance, in John Cornel v. A. Grevo (T) Ltd, Civil Case No. 70 of 1998 HC (unreported) Kalegeya, J. (as he then was) stated that: “However unfortunately it may be for the plaintiff, the Law of Limitation, on actions, knows no sympathy or equity. It is a merciless sword that cuts across and deep into all those who get caught in its web.” See also Night Support (T) Ltd v. Benedict Komba, Civil Revision No. 254 of 2008 CAT (unreported) where it was underscored that: “That limitation is material point in the speedy administration of justice. Limitation is there to ensure that a party does not come to court as when he chooses.” It is trite law that each day of the delay has to be accounted for, which however, that account should be done in an application for extension of time. The appellant filed this appeal outside the prescribed time as I have indicated above. His claim that since the appeal was admitted in Court then it should be taken that it was lodged within the prescribed 45 days is unacceptable. The appeal is thus time barred. Consequently, it is dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. Dated at KIGOMA ZONE this 4th of December 2024. J. . NKWABI, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 2