Specioza Majura vs William Kipe

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF SUMBAWANGA AT SUMBAWANGA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO, 9614 OF 2024 REFERENCE NO. 202405021000009614 SPECIOZA MAJURA................................. ............ ......... ............... APPLICANT VERSUS WILLIAM KIPE....... <..... ......................... ...................M-^&RESPONDENT RULING 18/06/2024 & 29/07/2024 . MWENEMPAZX,^ b The applicant has made an application under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, [Cap 89 R.E 2019] and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code, [Cap 33 R.E 2022] and any other enabling provision of law. She is praying for an order of extension of time to allow her file a Bill of Costs in Miscellaneous Land Appeal No. 42 of 2020 and in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 27 of 2022 both at the High Court of Tanzania - i Sumbawanga Registry, Also, she Is praying for costs of the application and any other relief. In the affidavit, the applicant has stated the reasons for delay to be financial constraints as she is an old woman without stable means of earning money. She has stated in paragraph 2 that she was the respondent in Land Appeal No. 42 of 2020 Which was dismissed by the this court onthe 22/09/2022 with costs and also the respondent was aggrieved by that decision which prompted him to file a Miscellaneous Land Application; No. 27 of 2022. In the latter application, the respondent sought orders of this court to certify points of law for him so that he can appeal to the court of appeal of Tanzania. That application was struck out on the 11/12/2023. Although she wanted to file a bill of cost, she failed due to economic constraints. She had two areas to apply the money^ which she lacked. To pay fees for preparation of the legal documents arid also filing fees. At the hearing of the application the applicant, was unrepresented and in her submission reiterated the contents of the affidavit. The applicant also submitted denying that there was any negligence and or sloppiness in 2 pursuing the application and prayed that this court exercises its discretion to extend time. The respondent was being represented by Mr. Kurwa Ngunga, Learned Advocate. He submitted in opposition to the application. First of all, he prayed that the counter affidavit by the respondent be adopted. He also informed this court that it should be noted that this application was filed on the 30/04/2024 since the decision in Land Appeal No.42of2020was handed down on 20/09/2022, the Bill of Cost ought to have been filed on the 23/11/2022. The applicant is delay has been for four'months. ‘ .2-2Safe Similarly, the decision in Land Application Nd, 27/2022 was handed down on the 11/12/2023. However, the applicant delayed up to 30/04/2024. It is the opinion of the counsel for the respondent that the applicant has not been able to raise sufficient reasons. The position of the law is that each day of delay must be accounted for. For the point, he referred the case of Omari R. Ibrahim Vs. Ndege Commercial Service Ltd, Civil Application No. 83/01 of 2020 Court of Appeal of Tanzania sitting at Mbeya. Second, the applicant had an opportunity to seek for waiver of fees by being declared bankrupt. On the other hand she should have filed an affidavit by 3 her son that he was assisting her on account of lack of financial capacity. For the point on the need to verify by an affidavit, the counsel cited the case of Mohamed Akida and Seven Others Vs. Law Shek Kon and two Others, Civil Application No. 481/17 of 2017 at page 11 where it was observed that: "It is trite law that where an affidavit in supportof a^ certain material fact mentions another person on that point, that other person should also take an affidavit in support of the fact" That was not done in the present case. the counsel opined that the reasons advanced are not merited to show that the applicant had financial incapacity to file the application bn time due to lack of legal fees. He argued that the applicant has failed to show and or adduce sufficient reasons for the court to extend time. The applicant was negligent and he prays the application be dismissed with costs. In rejoinder, the applicant has opposed and denied the argument that she was negligent. But she submits that she stays at Simanjiro. After the decision had been handed down she received information that the 4 respondent is pursuing an appeal to the court of appeal. Thus, she believed the case is still pending. Although it was struck out, but also she got sick that is why she could not make follow up closely on the dates between January to the time she filed a bill of cost which was later withdrawn on 25/03/2024. She cannot also prove by documents as she was treated at the local healers. 'W' I have heard the submission by the parties.-1 understand that for the court • JW*'- ' ’'A\-. ' ’ - ' "J to extend time there must be sufficient reasons. The decisions whose cases the applicant intend to file bill of cost were handed down on 29/09/2022 and 11/12/2023. This application was filed on 30/04/2024. Time for filing the bill of costs had lapsed'way long. The reasons for delay advanced is that she had no money to pay for'advocates fees and filing fees. In my understanding, the -reasons given by the applicant, financial difficulties, could e^ily be tackled if she could have prayed for waiver of fees by "//7 formapauperis affidavit". That in my view was the best approach instead of working hard looking for the money for fees while at the same time delaying. 5 While considering this application I have also noted that there was an application for bill of cost which being heard before the Deputy Registrar, and was withdrawn on 25/03/2024 following a preliminary objection. I have inquired and found that the same was filed on 07/02/2024. In consideration of the fact that there was an application, I am sure the applicant had her energy focused pursuing her rights save for the financial means which were minimal and or lacking. •- 4 Under the circumstances, I find that in the interest of justice there are sufficient reasons to allow, arid “grant the application. In order that she won't delay for the same reasons, I order that the requirement to pay fees is waived. The bill of cost should be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. No order as to Costs. It is ordered accordingly. Dated and signed at Sumbawanga this 29th day of July, 2024. T.M. MWENEMPAZI JUDGE 6 Ruling delivered this 29th day of July, 2024 in judge's chamber in the presence of applicant in person and Mr. Kurwa Hezron Ngunga, Learned Advocate for the Respondent.