selmani mohaj ldffomi vs minister of justice attorney general 2002 tzhc 2016 30 october 2002

IN T IE HIGH COURT OF TANiuAKLA. AT 3AR BS SALAAM MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO, 27 OF 2002 SELSMANI MOHAJ-LD I'ffOMI........ ........A P P J I ^ N f VEESUS HENlSTiJR OF JUXITCE ATTORNEY (S S K & feL....................................... . . . ............ SJJSPONDSNT R U L I N G IHEHA, J. In this application Seleman hchaired Ktoni the applicant is seeking leave of this court to apply for orders of certiorari to remove into this Honourable court and quash the decision of the Minister of Justice an^ Constitutional Affairs refusing to extend time to sue out of time. In his affidavit accompanying the application the applicant has deponed that on l'+th January 12001 he unsuccessfully applied to the Minister under Section kk (1 ) of Law of Limitation let to extend time within which to i’ .stitute legal proceedings against r.he Kinistry of Health, It is on r 3cord that the Minister declined to grant the extension of tire for %aht of jurisdiction in view of the fact that in law no extension of time can be entertained after the allowable period in terms of Section kk (1) of Law of Limitation Act 1971. The Attorney General has opposed the application and rightly so in my view. Under the provisions of Section kk (1 ) of the Law of Limitation Act 1971 the Minister has discretion to extend the period of limitation m respect of any suit by a period not exceeding one half of the period of limitation for such a suit. The facts in the pro- ,.t case an alleged tortious cause the prescribed time for any action is three (3 ) yea*s. The cause of action arose on 1 *rth J a n u a r y 1996 UPoh tlio v;.uc--af, daughter. As such on 14th day of January* 2001 when applicant nought the extension of time the allowable period of one half of the period of limitation had already lapsed, I is therefore nothing the minister could do in the circumstances. It should ba pointe(J ^ ^ e law stipulates that time starts t. run on the day when the cause of action arose and not otherwise as the Applicant mistakenly In the circumstances the preliminary objection raised is sustained, the application is struck out with costs for being incompetent. •• «/2 ~ 2 - Order accordingly. S, IHEMA, JUDGE 30/10/2002 Coram: Ihema, J 0 For applicant - In person For respondents - Absent CC Komba. Court: Ruling delivered to-day before the applicant in person and in the absence of the respondents with notice. Right of Appeal upon to the parties. S. IHEMA, JUDGE 30/10/2002