MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MTWARA AT MTWARA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 5081 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 202403111000005081 SALUMU SELEMANI LILANGU-------- -—------- ---------------------- - APPLICANT VERSUS SHAKIRA ISSA NAMATELEKA (The Administratix of The Estate of the Late Hassani Issa Namateleka)--------- -------------------------------- — RESPONDENT RULING 12^ October & 5s November2024. Ebrahim, J.: The Applicant has initiated the instant application for extension of time under section 41 (2) of The Land Disputes Courts Act [CAP. 216 R.E. 2019] so that he can lodge his appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mtwara at Mtwara in Land Application No. 1 of 2019. The application is supported by an affidavit deponed by SALUMU SELEMANI LILANGU, the Applicant. According to the averments in the Applicant's affidavit, his reason for the / delay is due to the fact that he fell sick after the delivery of judgment on 18th Page 1 of 7 November 2022 and he had to attend treatment at Muungano Health Facility. On 7th March 2024, he filed an application for extension of time vide Misc. Land Application No. 2 of 2023 which was struck but on 29th September 2023 for being incompetent. Again, he has now come to this court praying for extension of time to file appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mtwara at Mtwara in Land Application No. 1 of 2019. The Respondent in her counter affidavit vehemently opposed the contents of the affidavit. She contended that the Applicant has not attach a valid medical chit to prove that he was sick. When the case was called for hearing, the Applicant filed his written submission on 13th August 2024. The Respondent made oral submission before the court on 17th October 2024. Both parties appeared in person, unrepresented. The Applicant submitted that he had chronic illness after the delivery of the DLHT decision on 18th November 2022. He attended Muungano Health Facility for a long time. He referred the court to the medical chit (Annexture­ Pl) attached to the affidavit of 27th December 2023 praying for the same to form part of the application. Page 2 of 7 He submitted also that on 7th March 2023 he filed the same application vide Misc. Land Application No. 2 of 2023 of which it was struck out for being incompetent on 29th September 2023. Furthermore, the Applicant submitted on the issue of illegality and he cited a number of cases but neither did he point out the said illegality in his affidavit nor his submission. He prayed for the application to be allowed. Responding to the submission by the Applicant, the Respondent stated that the Applicant filed the same application before Hon. Muruke, J and Hon. Laltaika, J of which they were dismissed. She said the Applicant is just hindering the execution process and abusing the court processes. She prayed for the application to be dismissed. In re-joinder, the Applicant reiterated what he submitted in chief. It is a trite law that where extension of time is sought, the Applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Conversely, it is also well settled that the sufficient cause sought depends on deliberation of various factors some of which revolve around the nature of actions taken by the Applicant immediately before or after becoming aware that the delay is imminent or might occur as held in the case of Finca T. Limited & Another vs Boniface Mwalukisa (Civil Application No. 589 of 2018) [2019] TZCA 561 Page 3 of7 (15 May 2019). Therefore, the issue to be determined by this court is whether the Applicant has sufficient reasons for this court to grant the application. Apparently, the Applicants main reasons for the delay are illness, illegalities of the decision intended to be appealed against and the striking out of the previous application. I am abreast to the position of the Court of Appeal in the cases of Finca T. Limited & Another vs Boniface Mwalukisa (supra); and the case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (Civil Application 2 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 4 (3 October 2011) that in the application for extension of time the applicant must account for all the period of delay. Also, the appellant must as well show diligence, and not apathy, negligence or ineptness in the prosecution of the action that he intends to take. (See Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (supra). I am also alive to the general principle that even a single day of delay must be accounted for; see Airtel Tanzania Limited vs Mister light Electrical Installation Co. Limited & Another (Civil Application 37 of 2020) [2021] Page 4 of7 TZCA 517 (21 September 2021); and Bushin Hassan v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 3 of 2007 (unreported). I am again aware of the principle set by case law that where a point at issue is illegality, the same constitutes a sufficient reason for extending time so that the illegality can be cured. Surely, the illegality claimed by the Applicant in his submission is not demonstrated anywhere apart from the blanket allegation that there is illegality in the judgment of the DLHT. The complaint about illegality does not even feature in the Applicants Affidavit. Thus, the Applicants submission is merely words from the bar which do not support the affidavit. The same position was underscored in the case of Farida F. Mbarak & Another vs Domina Kagaruki & Others (Civil Reference No. 14 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 600 (20 October 2021). Moreover, I also find it apt to recount the Applicants averment in his submissions regarding the claimed illegality. At page 3 of the written submissions, he stated that: "The District land and Housing Tribunal constitutes a lot of illegality which requires thorough review of the High Court." Page 5 of 7 verily above quotation, is nothing else than the Applicants general statement in his written submission. As for the illness, the Applicant said that he was ill for a very long time causing his failure to follow up on the appeal. He invited the court to see the medical chit which leaves a lot to be desired. The "purported medical certificate" is a mere letter stating that the Applicant attended the hospital on various dates in November, December, 2023 and he was discharged on the 7th of January, 2023. He was then given ED for two weeks. Moreover, the said letter is a photocopy and in no way it is a medical chit to exhibit the exact dates that the Applicant attended the hospital for treatment or observations which would assist in accounting for each day of delay in order to establish good cause for extension of time as per the principles stated in the cited cases - Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (supra); and the case of Airtel Tanzania Limited vs Misterlight Electrical Installation Co. Limited & Another (Civil Application 37 of 2020) [2021] TZCA 517 (21 September 2021) The application at hand was lodged in court on 11th March 2024. From the date of striking out to the date of filing the present application there is a Page 6 of 7 lapse of 158 days. However, the applicant did not give any account of these 158 days. That being the case, since the Applicant has not accounted for 158 days which lapsed after the previous application being struck out on 29th September 2023; and has also failed to concretely prove that he was sick at first place; his reason that he delayed because the first application was struck out has no merit. Therefore, I find that the delay was caused by the applicant's apathy and lack of diligence. From the above findings, I am of the position that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient reason to warrant this court exercise its judicial discretion to grant extension of time. Consequently, I dismiss the application with costs. Accordingly ordered. JUDGE 08.11.2024 Page 7 of 7