image0017

V t IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBUC OF TANZANIA [MOROGORO SUB REGISTRY] AT MOROGORO LAND APPEAL NO. 2968 OF 2024 (Originating from the decision ofthe District Land and Housing Tribunal of Morogoro at Morogoro in Land Application No. 147of2014 by Hon. £ Mogasa, CM dated 9^ January, 2024) SALIMA SELELAMI(Administrator of the Estate of the !ate Selemani 3uma).... APPELLANT VERSUS ILUMINATA MUSH! RESPONDENT HAFIDHI SELEMANI .2"^ RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT 25/03/2024 & 25/04/2024 KINYAKA, J.: The appellant who was the 2"^ respondent in Land Application No. 147 of 2014 at the District Land and Housing Tribunal, hereinafter "the Tribunal" is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal which dismissed the 1^^ respondent's application for want of jurisdiction without an award of costs of the suit. Following her dissatisfaction with the said decision, the appellant appealed to this Court expressing her grievance towards the impugned decision basing on the following grounds of appeal 1 1. That, the tribunal erred in law and In fact In dismissing the application for want ofjurisdiction; 1. That, the Honourable Tribunalerred in law and in fact by dismissing the application without awarding cost to the Applicant; and 3. That, the Honorabie Tribunai chairman erred in iaw and in fact by composing a ruiing which was contrary to the preiiminary objection raised and the actual factor the case. On 25^^ March 2024, when the matter came for necessary orders, both the appellant and the 2"^ respondent appeared in person and unrepresented whilst Mr. Bartholomew Tarimo, learned advocate represented the respondent who had also entered appearance. The hearing of the appeal was conducted by way written submissions. According to the court's scheduling orders, the appellant ought to have filed her written submissions in support of her appeal by 2^^*^ April 2024 whereas the respondents' reply to the appellant's submission in chief was to be filed by 9^^ April 2024. The appellant's rejoinder, if any, was to be filed not later than 15^^' April 2024. In my thorough perusal of the said submissions in the course of composing this judgment, I have noted that the appellant's submission in chief which were drawn by Advocate Ndanu Emmanuel from Law Associate Advocates based in Dar es Salaam were filed in this Court on 3"^^ April 2024, one day after the date of filing the appellant's submissions as ordered by the Court. Although the appellant's submissions are Indicated to have been received on the electronic Case Management System (the eCMS) on 2""^ April 2024, but the same does not imply that the appellant filed the submission on time without payment of the requisite court fees. I say so because looking at the Exchequer Receipt on the eCMS, it is indicated that the same was issued on 3'^ April 2024 the date within which the payment for filing the written submissions was made. Times without a number, it has been held by this Court that the document is deemed to have been filed in court after payment of the prescribed fees. For instance in the case of Rex Investment Limited v. Mkombozi Commercial Bank, Commercial Reference No. 8 of 2023 (unreported) on page 4 through to 5, the Court in resolving the point for determination as to when as between the date of filing a document electronically and the date when filing fee is paid, the document is taken to be properly filed, the Court made the following deliberations which I fully subscribe to:- "On my part, I fully subscribe to the position taken by my learned Brethren In the above decisions. The reason for embracing the position is obvious and logical, that is, if physical filing ofdocument does make the documentproperly filed before the Court unless the filing fee is paid, it naturally follows that electronic filing, which in my view, is a substitute of physical filing cannot constitute proper filing unless the Wing fee is paid. See aiso the case ofJohn Chuwa vs Anthony Ciza 1992[TLR] 233. Another point I considered is, what would happen ifa party submits a document electronically and thereafter, he does notpay the Wing fee at all or does It after several months, would the document for which Wing fee has not been paid considered properly Wed? My quick answer is no." Reverting to the present appeal, it goes without saying that by lodging the written submissions on the online system on 2""^ April 2024 which was the due date for filing the same without paying the appropriate court fees on the same date, the appellant disobeyed the court's order by filing the appellant's submission out of time without seeking the indulgence of the Court to extend time within which she could file the same out of the time. On my part, I cannot condone such an act especially now that it has been over emphasized in a plethora of court's decision that court's orders must be obeyed. In emphasizing on the need of adhering to court's orders, this Court in the case of Zaina H. Lyelu v. Basola Lumato and Another (Dc), Civil Case No. 8 of 2009 which was cited with approval in the case of Equity for Tanzania Limited (EFTA) v. Salimu Kasimu Msangi, Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2022 (unreported) on page 10 observed as follows:- ^ "Now what is the effect of a court order that carries instructions which are to be carried out within a predetermined period? Obviousiy, such an order is binding. Court orders are made in order to be impiemented; they must be obeyed. Iforders made by courts are disregarded or ifthey are ignored, the system ofJustice wiiigrind to a halt or if wiii be so chaotic that everyone wiii decide to do only that which is conversant to them. In addition^ an order for filing submission is part ofhearing. So, ifa party fails to act within prescribed time, he will be guilty ofindulgence in like measure as if he defaulted to appear This should not be allowed to occur. Courts oflaw should always control proceedings, to allow such an act is to create a bad precedent and in turn invite chaos". [Emphasis added]. Flowing from the above authority which I believe to be the correct standpoint, I hasten to hold that as the appellant disobeyed the orders of this Court in filing her written submissions within time, the omission is as good as her failure to enter appearance and prosecute her appeal. The effect of one's failure to enter appearance and to prosecute a case is dismissal of the suit as held in the case of Famari Investment T Ltd. V. Abdallah Selemani Komba, Misc. Civil Application No. 41 of 2018 (unreported) on page 2, this Court, on being confronted with a situation where the applicant failed to file his submission in chief on time, borrowed wisdom from the case of Harold Maieko v, Harry Mwasanjala, DC, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2000, where it was held:- "/ hold therefore that the failure to We written submission inside the time prescribed by the court order was inexcusabie and amounted to faiiure to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Applying the above authority in the present matter, I find the appellant's omission to file the written submissions in support of her appeal equals to her failure to prosecute the same. In my opinion, after finding herself unable to file the submissions on time, the appellant's counsel ought to have presented before this Court a prayer for extension of time to lodge the submissions out of time. in the circumstance, I hereby dismiss the appellant's appeal for want of prosecution. In view of the fact that the appellant lodged her submissions with an assumption that the same were within time, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED at MOROGORO this 25^^ day of April 2024. H. A. KINYAKI JUDGE Cit- 25/04/2024 O«0 Court This judgment is delivered in the presence of the parties and their Advocates, Mr. Ndanu Emmanuel, Advocate for the appellant (virtually) and Mr. B. Tarimo, Advocate for the Respondent and Mr. Yona Assey, RMA. S. ia DEPUTY REGISTRAR 25/04/2024 Court Right of Appeal fully explained. rOUR) v.. DEPUTY REGISTRAR 25/04/2024 1 " tl' \ j •" 'V S .-1 /