19980524 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN \'.;j_; HIGE COURT <.. ::T TANZANIA ' AT DAR ES SALA1fr• NISC:8LI.J:JiiEOUS CIVIL CUSE ~m. 22 OF 1988 SEBl\S'rIAN ST:S:!:l{EN l'iINJ,..•••••••••••••••• APPELLANT ,

VERSUS 1. TfuT\JZANIA H,-i:RDCURS AU1. ;cd'..':'Y O • • • • • • • • • • ) P.ESFONDENT 2. LA.BOUR CGVi!'·IISSICNt;R ••••••• , ••• : ••••••• ) RULING. BUBESHI 1J. j ·r . . This is an application in terms of Segtion ~ (c) and Section ll of the. appeM!ite Jµr,i,edi~tion Act 197~ and .Rules 43 ( 9) and % .(1), ( 3) of Tanzania Court of Appelil Rules lf,7~:~ The applicant is asking for extension of time within which to app~al for .leave to appeal to Jthe Court of i,ppeal, . That a:.:·ter extension of time has been granted this Court be pleased to g!."ant leave (m.· the<'arplicant to:-lodge his appe4 to the Court of Appeal with a certif:i.catfon.that a poir.t of law is involved, An aff;i.aavit of the applicant one SEBASTIAN STEPHEN JIIINJJ.. . c.tta.ched herewith in ~ppot1, . . of the application. •f' The applicant depones that he w::;.s aggrieved by the order of the trial judge where generally he found the affiuavit to be defective. Tnat his counsel timely filed notice ' of .~ppeal. but only that he did not apply for leave on time. ln his oral submission before the Court.~ Maira learned counsel advocating fci9 the applicant stated that there was delay to eig~ the affidavit as th~ appli~ant wl ~way '11 ,. Moshi and counsel could not be properly instructed. The applicant~himself~-- however., does not mention anything in his affidavit.·. opposed-. On behalf of the Respondents Mr Mselem

emphatically . · the application in that ·( there has been no sufficient grounds diqlosed to explain the delay•• .' In order for this Court to allow for extension of cime the applicant has to· 1 ta.; the court why }:•:::! could nr.t apply for leave within time. The applicant has. dep~ed in his affidavit, para 6 there~o is relevant• it rGads "That my advocate did not apply for leave to appeal on time hence this applicdion and wi t:t.out ne0:ligen~e on his partV ·t · firm . . c.ounsel... W~th respect, I e.m 0f th':": .. vie\·! the.t thEre was negligence in the pal't of .:. _n- •·f; J~f Malra has tc ld tl1 2 ccurt tr"at he could have· orally ap~~J.ied for leave but tlte · '?•cord ehows thd on t;.1;;:: <;late of the rµlin 6 he wa.s not prer:..::r.t in eouri, ·~ ~ .j I have not been ccnviced thc:,.t there was juDtifiable reasons for the delay to ask 'for leave to appeal tc. the ilourt of ii.ppeal'• In the preruises I 'refuse to cxt-:Jr:.d the time within which to apply for leave. I dismiss tbe ayplicatj_cn~ I make no order. as to costs'• _,. .Y. i1' .i - \ ·.. ·- ,, Delivered before A.,G. K,besni Capt Nsanza for applicant JTJDCi~ Respondent though served wa::, 2,.bi:-:;;_,::_·,t• 24/5/s~ '