zaidi jumanne zaidi administrator of the estate of the late jumanne zaidi vs rajabu abdallah mbano 2020 tzhc 3629 16 november 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF KIGOMA) AT KIGOMA APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2020 (Arising from Land Application No. 63 of 2012 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kigoma at Ktgoma) ZAIDI JUMANNE Z.klVL(Administrator of the estate of the /ate Jumanne Zaidi)............................. APPLICANT VERSUS RAJABU ABDALLAH MBANO................................... RESPONDENT RULING 27th Oct. & l&h Nov. 2020 A. Matuma, J The Applicant is seeking extension of time within which to appeal in this Court against the decision in Land Application No. 63 of 2012 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kigoma at Kigoma. The Application has been preferred under section 38 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216 R.E 2002. The Respondent in the service of Mr. Method R.G. Kabuguzi learned Advocate has raised preliminary objection on the ground of wrong citation and again on the ground that the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons is defective for being argumentative. At the hearing of the objection, the Applicant was present in person and the Respondent had the service of Mr. KabuguzUdarned advocate. 1 | P a ge Mr. Kabuguzi learned advocate in his notice of the preliminary objection stated that the cited provision is usable as enabling provision for the grant of extension of time if the intended Appeal upon which extension of time is being sought is against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its Appellate or Revisional Jurisdiction but in the instant application it is against the original Decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal and therefore the Court is improperly moved under the provisions of section 38 supra. The Applicant on this and after reflection by the court conceded the incompetence of his application. He prayed to be allowed to go and rearrange himself afresh. Without much ado, it is clearly provided under Cap. 216 supra that extension of time can be granted by this court under section 38 (1) of the Act supra when the decision sought to be challenged on Appeal is of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its Appellate or Revisional Jurisdiction as rightly posed by Mr. Kabuguzi learned Advocate. If the intended Appeal is against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its original jurisdiction the Applicable provision is section 41 (2) of the Act supra. Since the impugned decision of the trial tribunal emanated from its original jurisdiction, it goes without saying that the Applicant in the instant Application cited not only a wrong provision but also improper citation of the same even if it would have been the correct one for not indicating the particular subsection upon which the Application was preferred. That being the case, this court has not been properly moved and the Application id incompetent. The same is herebwstruck out. 2 | P a ge To that end, there is no need to determine the second limb of the objection. Regarding the fact that the Applicant conceded without wasting the time of this court and being a lay person, I order no costs against any. Right of Appeal is fully explained to whoever aggrieved with this decision.