Misc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 8855 OF 2024 SALUM ZUBERI SELEMANI (Administrator of the Estate of the late Zainab Salehe Gubwe)....................................... APPLICANT versus BILUNGU KALENZI............................................ 1st RESPONDENT PRISCUS S. MARANDU..................... 2nd RESPONDENT SAID MOHAMED KIBASAME (alias MOHAMED NASSOR KIBASAME).................... 3rd RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 25/11/2024 Date of Ruling: 29/11/2024 LALTAIKA, J, The Applicant, SALUM ZUBERI SELEMANI (Administrator of the Estate of the late Zainab Salehe Gubwe) is seeking an extension of time to file an application for revision against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Ilala at Mwalimu House in Application No. 229 of 2009. The grounds for the application are outlined in the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons deponed by the Applicant, who Page 1 of 6 contends that he was not a party to the said proceedings and was unaware of the judgment that disowned the ownership of land by the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe. It is asserted that the Applicant became aware of the decision through the judgment in Land Appeal No. 27354 of 2023. The Applicant seeks an extension of time based on the grounds of illegality and denial of the right to be heard. The Application was heard by way of written submissions. The Applicant and 1st Respondent enjoyed the skillful legal services of Messrs Sabri Salehe Kizigha and Mussa Daffa, learned Advocates, respectively Mr. Kizigha, Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the 1st Respondent filed Application No. 229 of 2009, which concerned the disputed land. The judgment in that case affected the ownership rights of the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe without her being a party to the proceedings. He went on to explain that the 1st Respondent had later filed Land Application No. 148 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on October 27, 2023, on the grounds of res judicata, as it was deemed to have already been settled in Application No. 229 of 2009. Page 2 of 6 The learned Counsel proceeded to narrate that the 1st Respondent, aggrieved by the dismissal, appealed the decision in Land Appeal No. 27354/2023. Mr. Kizigha pointed out that the High Court's interpretation of the decision in Application No. 229 of 2009 further disowned the ownership of the disputed land by the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe. Counsel for the Applicant emphasized that the central issue was whether the Applicant had provided sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time. He argued that the grounds were as follows: first, the alleged illegality apparent on the face of the record, specifically the Tribunal’s decision regarding the ownership of the disputed land without affording the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe the right to be heard. He referred to Fred Robi Chacha v. Lidya Marwa Kitengwe (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2022, High Court of Tanzania, Mwanza Registry, Unreported) and VIP Engineering and Marketing Ltd v. Citibank Tanzania Ltd (Consolidated Civil Reference Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of 2006, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Unreported), where it was held that illegality constitutes sufficient cause for granting an extension of time. Counsel emphasized that in Fred Robi Chacha (Supra) the Court of Appeal held that the term "sufficient cause" should not be interpreted narrowly, but rather should be given a wide interpretation to encompass Page 3 of 6 all reasons or causes that are outside the applicant's control, resulting in the delay in taking any necessary step. He also referenced the case of VIP Engineering and Marketing Ltd v. Citibank Tanzania Ltd (Consolidated Civil Reference Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of 2006) to expound on the same argument. Mr. Kizigha further argued that the Applicant became aware of the Tribunal's decision affecting the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe's ownership of the land only after reading the judgment in Land Appeal No. 27354 of 2023 on April 2, 2024. He contended that the Applicant had accounted for the delay from the date of awareness to the filing of the application. Counsel emphasized that the Applicant had been appointed as the administrator of the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe's estate on February 15, 2022, and thus the period from January 22, 2020, when the judgment was delivered, to February 15, 2024, should be excluded in calculating the delay. Finally, Mr. Kizigha argued that since the Applicant was not a party to Application No. 229 of 2009 and was aggrieved by the judgment, the only remedy was through filing an application for revision, and an extension of time was required to do so. He cited the case Page 4 of 6 of Attorney General v. Oysterbay Villas Ltd (Civil Application No. 168/16 of 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania) to buttress his argument. Mr. Ngole, Counsel for the 1st Respondent, on his part, conceded with the application except on the prayer related to costs. I have dispassionately considered the rival submissions. In considering the present application, the Court must first establish whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application for revision. It is well established that in applications for extension of time, the applicant must show that there is a sufficient cause for the delay. The Applicant in this case has raised the issue of an apparent illegality in the Tribunal's decision, where the ownership of the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe was determined without her being heard, and the Applicant was not aware of the judgment until after the appeal in Land Appeal No. 27354 of 2023. The principle of law regarding illegality as a ground for seeking an extension of time is well settled. As cited in VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited vs. Citibank Tanzania Limited, (Supra) the Court of Appeal held that a claim of illegality constitutes a sufficient ground for extending time, regardless of the delay in filing the application. Page 5 of 6 In the present case, the Applicant's claim of an illegality concerning the disowning of the ownership rights of the late Zainabu Salehe Gubwe, without her being a party to the proceedings, is a valid ground for seeking an extension of time. Furthermore, the Applicant only became aware of the judgment in question after the decision in Land Appeal No. 27354 of 2023, which serves as an adequate explanation for the delay. In the upshot, the application for extension of time to file revision is hereby granted. The applicant is granted 14 days from the date of this Ruling to file his application. I make no order as to cost. It is so ordered. E.I. LA LTAl KA JUDGE 29/11/2024 Court: Ruling delivered in Court Chambers this 29th day of November 2029 in the presence of Mr. Samiru Kalokola, Legal Officer and Mr. Salumu Sasilio, representing the 1st Respondent. Page 6 of 6