REGISTRAR OF TITTLES SCANNED
- Citation
- REGISTRAR OF TITTLES SCANNED
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 29 November 2024
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 29 November 2024
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant's delay was due to technical reasons as he was pursuing his rights in a wrong forum, and the delay was not inordinate. Extension of time is therefore justified.
Court disposition
Application granted
Orders
- Applicant granted fourteen days from the date of ruling to file the intended review
- No order as to costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Madanio Ibrahim Saidi
Applicant Counsel: Mashaka NgoleRegistrar of Titles
1st Respondent Counsel: Mariam A. MatovolwaAssistant Commissioner for Lands, Dar es Salaam Zone
2nd Respondent Counsel: Mariam A. MatovolwaThe Honorable Attorney General
3rd Respondent Counsel: Mariam A. MatovolwaAmounts and remedies
- Extension Period Granted (days): 14
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for extension of time to apply for review
- 02
Whether technical delay constitutes sufficient cause
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the delay was technical, arising from pursuing recourse in a wrong forum (Misc. Land Application No. 11405 of 2024) which was eventually ruled res judicata.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the applicant failed to account for each day of delay between 30/04/2024 and 27/08/2024.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
High Court jurisprudence
Technical delay may constitute sufficient cause for extension of time if the applicant was diligently pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant's delay was due to technical reasons as he was pursuing his rights in a wrong forum, and the delay was not inordinate. Extension of time is therefore justified.
Court disposition
Application granted
- Applicant granted fourteen days from the date of ruling to file the intended review
- No order as to costs
Source and reliance status
TANZLII · 29 November 2024
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TANZLII
Judgment· 29 November 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 22217 OF 2024 (Arising From Mise. Land Application No. 26317 of 2023 & 11405 of 2024, Land Division) MADANIO IBRAHAM SAIDI.................................................................. APPLICANT
VERSUS REGISTRAR OF TITLES................................................................ 1st RESPONDENT
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS DAR ES SALAAM ZONE................................................................. 2Nt> RESPONDENT THE HONORABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL........................................ 3rd RESPONDENT
RULING 22nd to 29th November, 2024 E.B. LUVANDA, J The Applicant is seeking extension of time to enable him apply for review of the decision of this Court in the above captioned matter. In the affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant pleaded technical delay in prosecuting Mise. Land Application No. 11405 of 2024 which was lodged on 17/05/2024, following the extension granted by this Court on 30/04/2024 vide Mise. Land Application No. 26317 of 2023 (which its ruling is subject for the intended review). i In the counter affidavit, sworn by Ms. Mariam A. Matovolwa learned State Attorney, stated that the Applicant failed to account for each day of delay from 30/04/2024 to 27/08/2024 when the Applicant filed this application. In the submission in chief, Mr. Mashaka Ngole learned Counsel for the Applicant adopted contents of the affidavit in support of the application. Ms. Mariam A. Matovolwa learned State Attorney for Respondents did not file a reply submission. Arguably on 30/04/2024 the Applicant was granted fourteen days to file the intended review, which order was made in Mise. Land Application No. 26317 of 2023. On 17/05/2024 the Applicant filed Mise. Land Application No. 11405 of 2024, which was determined on 16/08/2024 on account of being res-judicata. Twenty-two days later, to wit on 6/09/2024 the Applicant filed this application. To my view, this amount to
technical delay, where the Applicant was busy fighting for recourse in pursuit of her right to a wrong forum, to wit Mise. Land Application No. 11405 of 2024 which was wrongly filed with its eventuality of being ruled res-judicata. Therefore, the delay is not inordinate one. The Applicant is granted fourteen days to file the intended review, which will count from the date hereof. 2 The application is granted. No order as to costs. Ruling delivered in the Respondents. 3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.