rukwembe r njuwila vs gwakisa mwambalaswa others 2005 tzhc 197 1 november 2005

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 1995 ( Original RM Civil Case No.88 of 1992 at Kisutu ) RUKWEMBE R. NJUWILA...........APPLICANT VERSUS GWAKISA MWAMBALASWA.............. RESPONDENTS & 2 OTHERS RULING A.Shangwa, J. This is an application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Mrs Kileo PRM ( with extended jurisdiction as she then was) in HC Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1995 . It was presented for filing on 24.6.1997 which is more than eight years ago. I regret to say that such a simple application has been pending in this court for such a long time without being determined. The dispute between the parties concerns ownership of plot No. 524 Block 'D' Sinza Area, Dar es Salaam. The Applicant's application is supported by affidavit of one Cuthbert Tenga who is the Applicant's Advocate. The major reason for the Applicant's failure to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal within the prescribed time is pointed out at paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit in which it is averred that on the date of delivering the judgment; that is on 5.2.1997, the Magistrate with extended jurisdiction had no spectacles, and that as a result, she did not read the whole judgment except the final order, and that the Applicant had to apply for a copy of the judgment which was supplied to him on 11.6.1997 as per ERV No. 0 51 38915. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that, as a whole, this application has no substance. He contended that as judgment was read on 5.2.1997, the Applicant could have obtained a copy of that judgment within time had he made diligent efforts. As far as I know, it is a duty of the court's Registry Officers to supply copies of proceedings and judgments or rulings and orders to the parties whenever they are ready. These officers have a duty to make diligent efforts to make sure such copies are typed, proof read, signed and supplied to the parties within the time limits. Incidentally , there is no provision of law which fixes a time limit for the supply of such copies to the parties. As a consequence, it happens in many cases that such copies are supplied to the parties outside the specified period of time within which to lodge an appeal or application as it appears to have been done in this case. Due to the fact that the Applicant was not supplied by the Registry Officer with a copy of the judgment in HC Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1995 before the expiration of time to file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, his application for extension of time to file the same is grounded on sufficient reason. I hereby grant it and order that he should file his application for such leave within thirty days from today. In so far as the costs are concerned, I order that each party should bear its own costs. A. Shangwa JUDGE 1.11.2005. Delivered in Court this 1st November, 2005. A. Shangwa JUDGE 1.11.2005.