Automated Summary
Key Facts
Magnus K. Laurean sought an extension to appeal a 2022 ruling by Hon. S.B. Fimbo in Execution No. 507 of 2021, which struck out his initial execution application for terminal benefits. He filed multiple subsequent execution applications (Nos. 266/2022 and 325/2022), with the latter leading to payment of TZS 22,935,500. The court dismissed the extension request, finding no valid grounds for delay and concluding that the alleged illegality in the 2022 ruling was not apparent on the record.
Issues
- The applicant claimed that the Deputy Registrar's ruling was illegal, specifically arguing that the court had no jurisdiction. The court examined this claim and concluded that the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record. It cited several cases where illegality must be evident without requiring extensive argument. The court found that the applicant's argument did not meet this threshold and thus the illegality could not serve as a basis for the extension. The judge emphasized that submissions from counsel are not evidence and therefore could not support the claim of illegality.
- The court considered whether the applicant's delay in filing a Notice of Appeal was justified as a technical delay, given that he was actively pursuing execution applications after the impugned ruling. The applicant argued that he was diligently prosecuting the execution from April 2022 to September 2022, leading to a technical delay. However, the court found that the applications filed were for execution, not related to the appeal, and thus the delay was not technical. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the applicant's actions did not constitute a valid technical delay for extending the appeal period.
Holdings
- The court rejected the argument that the impugned ruling was interlocutory, stating that this claim was not supported by the applicant's affidavit and was merely a submission from the bar without legal impact. It referenced multiple case laws affirming that submissions are not evidence.
- The court held that the applicant's failure to account for each day of the 6-month delay between filing Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2022 and the current application was a disqualifying factor. It cited case law requiring strict adherence to accounting for delays in such matters.
- The court determined that the alleged illegality in the impugned ruling was not apparent on the face of the record, as it required a long-drawn argument to establish. This invalidated the applicant's claim that illegality justified the extension of time.
- The court dismissed the application for extension of time to file an appeal, finding no good grounds to warrant it. It held that the applicant's alleged technical delay was invalid as the subsequent execution applications were unrelated to the appeal, and the applicant failed to account for the delay. The court emphasized that litigation must come to an end and that the applicant acted opportunistically in pursuing the application after receiving payment from the execution.
Remedies
The court dismissed the application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, finding no good grounds for granting relief. The judge concluded that the applicant's delay was not justified and the application was filed opportunistically after the execution of the decree had been completed.
Monetary Damages
22935500.00
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized that applicants seeking an extension of time must account for each day of the delay, citing cases like Bushiri Hassan v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo and Idd Muhunzi v. Tanzania Cigarette Public Company. Failure to do so disqualifies the application.
- The court cited the principle that legal proceedings must come to an end to avoid perpetual litigation, referencing the case of Pravin Girdhar Chavda. This underscores the policy against allowing parties to relitigate settled matters.
- The court applied the principle that for illegality to be a valid ground for an extension, it must be evident on the face of the record without requiring further argument or process. The applicant's claims of illegality were deemed insufficient under this test.
- The court held that submissions made by counsel are not evidence and cannot substitute for evidence, referencing the Bunju Village case and others. Submissions are meant to reflect arguments on applicable law, not replace factual evidence.
Precedent Name
- Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam v. The Chairman, Bunju Village Government & 11 Others
- Hassan Twaib Ngonyani v. TAZAMA Pipeline Ltd
- Ernest Ngiremisho t/a Tumaini College v. Boniface Philip Kimboka t/a Eureka Training Institute
- Pravin Girdhar Chavda v. Yasmin Nurdin Yusufali
- Kabula Azaria Ng'ondi & 2 Others v. Maria Francis Zumba & Another
- Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd v. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania
- Bruno Wenceslaus Nyalifa v. Permanent Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs & Another
- Benjamin Watson. Mwaijibe v. Ellen & Ethan Consult
- Registered Trustee of Sibusiso Foundation v. Angelus Bandali Ngatunga
- National Housing Corporation v. Janeth David Mashingia
Cited Statute
Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap. 366 R.E. 2019]
Judge Name
B. E. K. Mganga, J.
Passage Text
- "...the illegality in question must be that which raises a point of law of sufficient importance and the same must be apparent on the face of record not one that would be discovered by a long-drawn argument or process."
- For all what I have discussed hereinabove, I hold that there are no good grounds to warrant this application to be granted. I therefore, dismiss it for want of merit.
- "Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension, by the Court of the legal result. If this were permitted, litigation would have no end except when legal ingenuity is exhausted."