SHUDRUCK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MWANZA SUB-REGISTRY) AT MWANZA MISC.LAND APPLICATION NO. 12057 OF 2024 (Arising from Ukerewe District Land and Housing Tribunal In Misc. Application No.60 of 2023) SHUDRUCK MAZUBU MSONGE…………………………….APPLICANT VERSUS SAFINA MASATU…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT EXPARTE RULING 20th and 24th June, 2024 KAMANA, J. Mr. Shudruck Mazubu Msonge, the applicant, approached this Court seeking an extension of time to apply for revision against the order issued by the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) for Ukerewe District in Execution No. 60 of 2023. The application was supported by his affidavit. The same went unopposed as the respondent refused to receive the issued summons. As a layperson, the applicant had a brief submission as he contended that he failed to apply for an extension of time within the time set by the law as he was not supplied with the proceedings timely. He argued further that he took various initiatives including visiting at different times at the Tribunal, the High Court-Mwanza Sub-Registry and 1 the office of the Registrar of DLHTs in Dodoma in a bid to ensure that he is supplied with the proceedings. Apart from those initiatives, the applicant stated to have written letters to the DLHT requesting to be supplied with the proceedings. Apart from that, the applicant averred in his affidavit that the order issued by the Tribunal was tainted with irregularities as it attached the property whose ownership is contested by him and the respondent in Land Application No.62 of 2023 before the Tribunal. I have gone through the records and found that the proceedings and the impugned order were issued on 6th October, 2023. Given that the applicant was supposed to challenge the order by way of revision no later than 5th December, 2023. Records reveal that the proceedings were issued to him on 29th April, 2024. The current position of law is to the effect that Courts enjoy powers to grant or refuse an application for an extension of time within which to take some judicial steps. Such powers are discretional and are exercised judiciously. The discretion entails that the Court should make decisions that are logically sound, tracing their basis from the rules of law. This position was stated in Nicholaus Mwaipyana v. The Registered Trustees of Little Sisters of Jesus of Tanzania, CAT- 2 Civil Application No. 535/8 of 2019 (unreported). The Superior Court of the land stated the following: ‘The power to extend time given under this provision is discretional, but such discretion must be exercised judicially, meaning the making of a logically sound decision based on rules of the law. That requires the attention of the court to all the relevant factors and materials surrounding any particular case. These factors include the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether or not there is an arguable case, among others.’ In the case of Mbogo v. Shah [1968] EA 93 it was held as follows: ‘All relevant factors must be taken into account in deciding how to exercise the discretion to extend time. These factors include the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether there is an arguable case on the appeal and the degree of prejudice to the defendant if time is extended.’ In the famous case of Lyamuya Construction Company Limited v. Board of Trustees of YWCA, CAT-Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 (unreported), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania illustrated key 3 conditions upon which grant of extension of time should be based. The conditions are as follows: ‘(a) The applicant must account for all the period of delay; (b)The delay should not be inordinate; (c)The applicant must show diligence and not apathy, negligence or sloppiness in the prosecution of the action he intends to take; (d)If the Court feels that there are other sufficient reasons, such as the existence of a point of law of sufficient importance; such as illegality of the decision sought to be challenged.’ Inspired by those authorities, I asked myself as to whether the applicant had accounted for each day of delay. In his submission, he stated that he visited the DLHT, the High Court-Mwanza Sub-Registry and the Registrar of DLHTs in Dodoma in a bid to be supplied with the proceedings. However, there is no mention of such visits in his affidavit. Trite law is that statements from the bar unsupported by the affidavit are worth no consideration. See: Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam v. The Chairman, Bunju Village Government & 11 Others, Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006 and Bish 4 International B.V. & Rudolf Teurnis Van Winkelhof v. Charles Yaw Sarkodie &. Bish Tanzania Limited, Land Case No. 9 of 2006 (both unreported). Fortified by those authorities, I refrain from considering the statements. Further, in his affidavit, the applicant annexed his two letters dated 5th March, 2024 and 20th March, 2024 addressed to the DLHT. According to him, the letters were written to request the proceedings. I have gone through the letters and found that they refer to the Tribunal’s decision of 9th February, 2024. Without mincing words, I am of the view that the said letters have nothing to do with the impugned order issued on 6th October, 2023. Indeed, the applicant has failed to account for each day of delay. What he stated about the visits and the letters is unfounded. From 6th October, 2023 to 24th May, 2024 when the application was filed is almost seven months. In the absence of any proof that the applicant was diligent in exercising his rights by requesting the proceedings in question, I find that the delay was inordinate. For the same reasons, I take the position that the applicant was sloppy in pursuing the matter. 5 As regards the irregularity he cited, in my opinion, irregularity has never been the ground for extending the time to take action. Assuming that the applicant meant illegality instead of irregularity, what he deposed in his affidavit is a made-up story. According to the records, on 6th October, 2023 when the Tribunal’s order was pronounced preceded by the hearing, the applicant was present and did not mention that the property to be attached was in dispute as to its ownership. Further, Land Application No.62 of 2023 regarding the ownership of the attached property was filed on 30th November, 2023 while the impugned order was issued on 6th October, 2023. In other words, there was no Land Application No.62 of 2023 when the order was issued. Having taken the position, the application is dismissed. Order accordingly. DATED at MWANZA this 24th day of June, 2024. KS KAMANA JUDGE 6