20180215 TZCA Dar es Salaam

,I IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DODOMA LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2016 (From the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Dodoma District at Dodoma in Land Case No 40 of 2014) THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ........................................................ APPELLANT ___,_~--·~~ ·-·. --: ~. ·- ' 1 )i VERSUS ERASTO JOHN ............................................................. RESPONDENT RULING 31/10/2017 & 15/2/2018 A. MOHAMED, J. This ruling pertains to a preliminary objection on a point of · , ·. ·law'"rdised by~tfle·re:f12ror-rdent thdt th·e ipre·ser{f Land appe"dl 'fs tm7i~ barred, in his writteh submission in support of the objection, the respondent averred the appeal is time barred. He pointed out that judgment of Land Application No. 40 of 201 4 at the Dodoma District Land and Housing Tribunal between the parties wa·s delivered on· 25/8/2016 w_ hilst the present appeal to this court's registry was filed S<'. 11 on 27/10/2017 which was sixty two days after the date of judgment~ 1 • The right of Appeal explained. ¢Jfif A. MOHAMED JUDGE 20/02/2018 13 in contravention of section 41 (2) of the Land Courts Disputes Act (Cap 216 RE 2002) as amended by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 2 of 2016. He submitted that according to the above provision, an appeal from the District Land and Housing Tribunal exercising its original jurisdiction to the High Court should be filed within forty five (45) days. And since the appellant was out of time, it ought to have filed an application for extension of time to file an appeal out of time ,~_pfil ti]~_ prqvi$.O ~?.f JJle above quoted section before filing the a'ppeal. He therefore. urged this court to dismiss the appeal with costs. . . It' is:. pertinent to note that the appellant failed to submi,t its written_svbm-ission as per this court's order dated 31/7/2017. In the unreported case of Harold Maleko V. Mwasanjala, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2000, Mackanja, J. observed that: -~...;n~ - TT; ~ ;;<••~-:-:- c,.; ::-:~f_ailuie to file written submissions inside of the time prescribed by the court order was inexcusable and amounted to failure to prosecute the appeal" In view of the above statement that represents the correct position of the law, the appeal is without legs to stand on. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by the respondent, section 41 (2) of the Land Courts Disputes Act provides a 45 day limit 2 within which an aggrieved party may appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. It provides: "An appeal under subsection (1) may be lodged within forty five·days after the date of the decision or order: Provided that, the High Court may, for good cause, extend the time for filing an appeal either before or after the expiration of such period of forty five days." As aforesaid, the record shows judgment was delivered on 25/8/2016 while the appeal was filed on 27/10/2016, some 62 days later, 1t,is clear; the.opp'ellant was hopelessly out of time. As correctly observed by the respondent, the appellant ought to have filed an application for extension of time within which to file an appeal in terms of the proviso to the above section. _: ~- ~-. --·-lo-thi~ premJse:;. rl sustain tl:)e preliminary objection on.d dismiss the appeal with costs. It is so ordered. A. MOHAMED JUDGE 15/02/2018 3