20170215 TZHC Arusha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF ARUSHA ATARUSHA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2016 (CIVIL CASE NO 29 OF 1995) SUGAR BOARD OF TANZANIA ........................................ APPLICANT VERSUS SHARIFA MASSALA ...................................................... RESPONDENT RULING DR. M. OPIYO, l. The applicant, Sugar Board of Tanzania filed an application for extension of time within which to file application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the judgment and decree of this honourable court in Civil case No 29 of 1995. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant's principal officer one Ms. Angela Herman Mwageni who deponed that, the judgement in civil case No 29 of 1995 was delivered on 29/05/2014 in favour of the respondent and that aggrieved by the said decision they intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania I She further deponed that on ih August 2014 they filed an application ·, ( for leave which was withdrawn with liberty to refile; they then filed two applications which were stricken out for none and wrong citation of the law. He said that there are important issues to be addressed by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania and they have been pursuing attempts to appeal against the said judgment and decree. She prayed for the present application to be allowed with costs. Opposing the application respondent submitted that, the applicant did not advance sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the application for leave within the prescribed time, she said that, the judgment was delivered on 30/05/2014 and the present application was filed on 02/05/2016 which is after almost two years. She added that the applicant has not been able to account for each day of delay for the period of two years, she referred this court to the case of Bushiri Hassan Versus Latifa Lukio Mashayo Civil Application No 03 of 2007 (unreported) the Court of Appeal held that; ''Delay, of even single day, has to be accounted for otherwise there would be point of having rules prescribing periods within which certain steps have to be taken' Having taken into consideration the narrations on the affidavit by Ms. Angela, and the submission in support of the application, the main issue for consideration is whether or not good cause of delay has been established. The law is very clear that in order for this court to exercise its discretionary powers by extending time to file application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time, the applicant must satisfy the court that there is good and sufficient cause for such 2 ] I delay. From the circumstances of this case and the fact that applicant t,; has not been sitting idle from May 2014 when the judgment was delivered to May 2016 when he preferred the present application, I am of the considered view that good cause has been established. That being said, it is my view that . the applicant has advanced sufficient reasons for this court to use its discretionary power to extend time. The application is allowed, the applicant to file the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 14 days from the date of this ruling. (Sgd) DR. M. OPIYO JUDGE 15,/02/2017 I hereby certify this to be a true copy of the original ' DEPUTY REGISTRAR ARUSHA 3