SOGORI SOGORI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MUSOMA SUB-REGISTRY AT MUSOMA LAND APPEAL No. 000019999 REFERENCE NO. 202408161000019999 (Arising from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Serengeti at Mugumu in Misc. Land Application No. 13 of2024 Originating from Land Application No. 13 of 2017 at Kisaka Ward) Tribunal BETWEEN SOGORI SOGORI........................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS WANSATO GESIRI.......................................................................RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 13h & 18h March, 2025 M. L, KOMBA, J,: This appeal emanates from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara at Musoma (the DLHT) in Misc. Land Application No. 13 of 2024 where Hon. Chairperson dismissed application for extension of time by the appellant. Previous according to court record, respondent and another person (who is not subject to this appeal) file a Land Application No. 13 of 2017 at Kisika Ward Tribunal (the trial Tribunal) claiming declaration of ownership of the land in dispute. Upon full trial, the Trial Tribunal rule that applicants Page 1 of 6 (including respondent) are lawful owners of the land in dispute as each one had separate piece of land. According to Trial Tribunal record, respondent own the land measure 155 by 110 footsteps. Decision was delivered on 26/10/2017. In the year 2023 respondent file execution proceedings No. 11 of 2023 at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Serengeti at Mugumu (the DLHT) which was finalized on 23/11/2023 by order the applicant to vacate the disputed land and to pay costs. On 20th February 2024 above named appellant file an application for extension of time to appeal out of time against the decision of the trial tribunal issued in 2017. Upon hearing the matter Hon chairman found there was no reasonable reasons listed by the applicant to warrant extension of time hence refuse to grant time on decision which was delivered on 19/6/2024. Above named appellant was dissatisfied by the decision of the DLHT and fronted this court with three grounds of appeal as follows; 1. That, the Learned Chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law for failure to observe that the appellant's ground for extension of time is hinged on the illegality at the Kisaka Ward Tribunal; hence illegality is a fair ground for extension of time. Page 2 of 6 2. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law to refuse to grant the appellant the extension oftime to appeal against the decision of the Kisaka Ward Tribunal while the decision of the trial tribunal is tainted with illegality on the face of the record. 3. That, the appellant advanced sufficient grounds to warrant the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Serengeti to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Kisaka Ward Tribunal; hence it was wrong for the tribunal to refuse to grant extension of time. When the appeal was placed before me for hearing, both parties stood solo without any representation. When given the floor, appellant submitted that there was illegality on the proceedings of the trial tribunal that it makes decision without calling witnesses so members of the tribunal did not know the truth. He went on submitting that the tribunal was dissolved by Ward Executive Officer before their case was finalized. He insisted that he had reasonable grounds for extension of time as he was not aware when the judgment was delivered. On the side of respondent, she resisted the appeal and submitted that each party paraded witnesses who testified at the trial tribunal and insisted even appellant had witnesses and further that, by that time the ward tribunal was in operation. She went on inform this court that Ward Tribunal noted their mother (appellant and respondent mother) testified before the tribunal and Page 3 of 6 she explained how she distributed her farm to her children including respondent. She went on submitting that at the DLHT appellant had I had no reasons to explain why he did not appeal on time after the trial tribunal decision. She prayed the appeal to be dismissed and she prayed for costs. During rejoinder appellant insisted that there were no witnesses at the trial tribunal and that he had reasons for delay in filing his appeal. My duty is to determine the appeal before me as argued by both sides. In doing so I shall combine all three grounds of appeal on whether appellant has registered good cause for extension of time. To begin with, I feel it is instructive to reiterate, as a matter of general principle that whether to grant or refuse an application like the one at hand is entirely in the discretion of the Court, but that discretion is judicial and so it must be exercised according to the rules of reasoning and justice. For instance, in Omary Shabani Nyambu vs Dodoma Water and Sewerage Authority, Civil Application No. 146 of 2016 the Court of Appeal, at page 6, had this to state: 'It is significant to emphasize that the Court's discretion in deciding whether or not to extend time must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously, nor should it be exercised on the basis ofsentiments or sympathy. Fundamentally, the said discretion Page 4 of 6 must aim at avoiding injustice or hardships resulting from accidental inadvertence or excusable mistake or error, but should not be designed at assisting a person who may have deliberately sought it in order to evade or otherwise to obstruct the cause ofjustice'. It is undisputed that appellant was denied time to appeal against the decision of Trial Tribunal which was delivered in the year 2017. In his submission when praying for time, appellant informed the DLHT that he was not aware of the judgment till 2023 when respondent file objection proceedings that he knew that trial tribunal issued judgment in favour of the respondent. Executing tribunal noted that concerned. However, the law dictates that each party who need extension of time to explain how he spent the given time before he asked for addition and has to account what makes him busy from the time provided by law to when he filed the application. See Finca T. Limited & Another vs Boniface Mwalukisa (Civil Application 589 of 2018) [2019] TZCA 561 (15 May 2019). Further, when there is illegality court may grant time so that the matter can be solved regardless if party manage to account the days lost or otherwise. See Principal Secretary Minister of Defence and National Service vs Devram P. Valambia [1992] TLR 387, James Anthony Ifada vs Hamis Page 5 of 6 Alawi, Civil Appeal No. 482/2014 of 2019 and Amour Habib Salim vs Hussein Bafagi, Civil Application No. 52 of 2009. In the case at hand, appellant complained of illegality that no witnesses were called to testify at Trial Tribunal. Reading the trial tribunal judgment, I see the record show witnesses were summoned to testify in court and appellant had one witness. Therefore, the issue that no witnesses were summoned does not hold water as judgment revealed there were witnesses. I find there was no illegality of summoning witnesses at trial tribunal. Other issue of accounting days of delay was well analised by Hon Chairman of the DLHT that appellant failed to account days from the date he was aware of the judgment of the Trial Tribunal which was 12/04/2023 to 20/02/2024 when he filed application for extension of time. In the upshot, I find the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. DATED at MUSOMA this 18th Day of March, 2025. Page 6 of 6