the registered trustees of masjid haq zaidi khamis buguruni vskambi furahisha and12 others 2020 tzhclandd 3854 11 november 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2019 (Originating from Land Case No. 20/2008 and Land Case No. 61/2018) THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MASJID HAQ IDI KHAMSINI BUGURUNI PPLICANT VERSUS^ KAMBI FURAHISHA fST respondent MOHAMED MWAPILE. RESPONDENT MBARAKAJUMA. .S"" RESPONDENT IBRAHIM TEACHER 4™ RESPONDENT ABDALLAH MIKOI E 5™ RESPONDENT SAID SALUM CHUMAm...m>.. .M. 6™ RESPONDENT issA NDUMS. m. 7™ respondent SALUMlMiKOL'i^^^^^^^^ft. 8™ RESPONDENT SAICpMARYWC^. 9™ RESPONDENT IBRAAm ALLY^MAD 10^" RESPONDENT SAID MOHAMEDISAID 11™ RESPONDENT MKADAM ABDALLAH SWALEH 12™ RESPONDENT HUSSEIN H. RUHOMBO 13™ RESPONDENT Last Order: 6/7/2020 Ruling date: 30/10/2020 RULING MANGO,3. Before me is an appiication for e)rtension of time to file a fresh suit. The application is by way of Chamber Summons made under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitations Act, [Cap 89 R.E 2019] read together with section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, [Cap: 33 R.E 20^^Tie application is supported by an affidavit affirmed by ALLY NASSOR^SEMBOGA, the chairman of the board of the trustees of the T^^appitetion is opposed by the respondents who filei%a coMer^Mdavit^/vorn by IBRAHIM TEACHER. According to paragraph 11 of th^^da iggnigseeKs extension of time to institute a case^Sist t jesDii^ents for recovery of land located at Plots No. 279 akj 280 B® runaua^s Salaam. The applicant was gsented bv mb Abdailah R.M Matumia learned advocate wl jspoi^nnSSilal services of Mr. Juma Nassoro, learned advorai appii^tion was argued by way of written submission. SubmiMnq in suMort W the appiication, Mr. Matumia highlighted the hackarniJHi^f theBispute and argued that the dispute was subject of a nurhber of court proceedings that made them fail to file their case within time. He argued that, the fact that: the applicants had been in court processes involving the same subject matter, is a sufficient cause for this court to grant extension of time to institute a fresh suit and have the dispute determined on merits. In his reply Mr. Nassor argued that, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant extension of time for parties to institute fresh suits. The applicant had no rejoinder. I have considered the submissions by both parties and court record. From the applicant's submission and affidavit in support of the application, the applicant seeks extension of time to file a fresh suitfslime to institute the same has expired. The law, section 44(1) of The Lawl^-imitations Act, [Cap 89 R.E 2019] provides; "Where the Minister is of the opirim^thS^0fvi^W^f the circumstances in any case, it^ust ar^^guitabie to do so, he may, after consultation the by order under his hand, extend^e pe^f^ of^itaboriMi respect ofany suit by a period not exceeding^^pne haif of the period of suit." In such circumstance I with e respondents counsel that this court lacks iudsdiclfen t6%;ant er sought by the applicant. Such extension can lihly bfflgrante«|3y the order of the Minister as provided by secti( th®faw oPOmitations Act. For th^reason,^^ ap^ication is hereby dismissed. Given the nature of the dispu^betwepi parties to this application, I award no costs, each party should bdaPlts own costs. -:<■ .O/ Z. D. MA^ GO a JUDGE 11/11/2020 DIV# ^