SALOME PASCHARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA

AT MWANZA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 998 OF 2024 (Arising from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza in Misc. Land Application No. 22 of 2022) SALOME PASCHARY…………………….………………………..……………APPLICANT

VERSUS ATHUMANI MABUNDUNGURU NKWABI……..………………………..RESPONDENT

RULING 18th June & 18th June, 2024. Kilekamajenga, J. The instant application seeks an extension of time to file a notice to approach the Honourable Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The application is made under Rule (10) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; Section 11(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 RE 2019; Section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act Cap 89 and Section 93 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 RE 2019. The application is supported with an affidavit sworn by the applicant. Despite the applicant’s effort, the respondent willfully refused to receive the summons. The affidavit from the court process server is a proof to the above fact. Hence, this court heard the application in the absence of the respondent. 1 During the hearing of the application, the applicant being a lay person simply prayed for the adoption of the affidavit in support of the application. Going through the applicant’s affidavit, the applicant wishes to move this court to extend the time to file the notice to reach the Court of Appeal. The delay in filing the notice is premised on the fact that, she did not know the existence of the appeal against her. She was, therefore, denied the right to be heard. Furthermore, she has been in the court’s corridors for years seeking her lost justice. Having considered the affidavit, the pertinent issue for determination is whether the applicant has

given sufficient reason for the court to grant an extension of time. The court is vested with discretionary powers to extend time. However, the discretionary must be exercised judiciously. Discretion must be exercised towards avoiding injustice. See, Shah v. Mbogo and another [1967] EA 116; Charles Marko Naibala v. Lilian Marko Naibala, Civil Application No. 119/05 of 2024. The case of Ally Mohamed Mkupa v. Republic, Criminal Application No. 93/07 of 2019 further stressed that: “…the Court has powers to extend time for doing of any act that a party has failed to do within the prescribed time. The exercise of that power is discretionary which has to be exercised judiciously. Acting judiciously is to act for good cause or sufficient reason.” 2 Going through the court record, it is evident that the applicant has been in the court’s corridors pursuing her rights. As the applicant was delay due to lack of knowledge about the presence of the appeal, and for the interest of justice, I have no hesitation to invoke the discretionary powers of this court. The applicant is granted 30 days to file the notice in order to reach the Court of Appeal for justice. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. DATED at Mwanza this 18th Day of June 2024. Ntemi N. Kilekamajenga.

JUDGE 18/06/2024 Court: Ruling delivered this 18th Day of June 2024 in the presence of applicant but in the absence of the respondent. Right of appeal explained to the parties. 3 Ntemi N. Kilekamajenga.

JUDGE 18/06/2024 4