samson oluck mingaih nondo ta adjustment busines company limited versus efc tanza mfc limited 2 pthers 2023 tzhclandd 16739 24 july 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND REVISION NO. 27 OF 2023 (Originating in Land Application No. 234 of2014 by the District Land and Housing Tribunalfor Ilafa) SAMSON OLUCK MINGAIH NONDO T/a ADJUSTMENT BUSINES COMPANY LIMITED APPLICANT VERSUS EFC TANZA MFC LIMITED RESPONDENT BLUESKY AUCTION MART & REAL AGENCY CO. LTD 2^" RESPONDENT ABDALLAH ISMAIL MWINYI 3'"' RESPONDENT EX-PARTE RULING Date ofLast Order: 05072023 Date ofRuling: 24.07.2023 T. N. MWENEGOHA,J. The Applicant invited this Court to call for, inspect and then revise the proceedings and decision given by Hon. Kirumbi, vide Land Application No. 234 of 2014, dated 07^^ June, 2022, given the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Ilala. The Application was made under Section 43(l)(a)and (b), and 43(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R. E. 2019. The same was supported by the affidavit of the applicant, Samson Cluck Mngaih Nondo. The respondent on his part, objected the tenability of the matter, for being time barred. The objection was heard by written submissions. The appiicant did not file a reply to the respondent's submissions for reasons only known to him. Hence exparte Ruling. Submitting for the preliminary objection, Mr. Cleophas James, iearned counsel for the respondent, insisted that, the Application at hand, contravenes the mandatory provision of Item 21 Part III of the Schedule of the Law of Limitations Act, Cap 89 R. E. 2019. The same was brought after expiry of 60 days. That,the impugned decision of Hon. Kirumbi was delivered on the 06^^ May, 2022. This case was filed on the 15"^ June, 2023. More than a year after the delivery of the said decision. Therefore, it is time barred as stated in Nelson Mesha E. Mpemba versus Stephano S. M. Mpemba & 5 Others, Misc. Land Application No.44 of 2021, High Court ofTanzania,(unreported). Having considered the submissions of the respondent's counsel, I will straight go into the merits or otherwise of the objection raised. Unquestionably, the instant Application is untenable for being time barred. As argued by Mr. Cleophas James, this case was filed after the expiry of 60 days period given by the law, see Item 21 Part III of the Schedule of the Law of Limitations Act, Cap 89 R. E. 2019 and the case of Nelson Mesha E. Mpemba versus Stephano S. M, Mpemba & 5 Others,(supra), as properly referred by the counsel. One can easily conclude that it is no wonder, the appiicant decided not to contest the objection. He knew the same has merits. Hence, I sustain it accordingly and proceed to strike out the application with costs. It is so ordered. rWENEGOHA JUDGE 24/07/2023