Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Appellant Nancy Davis Mosha filed a civil appeal challenging a matrimonial matter decision, but the Respondent Davis Elisa Mosha raised a preliminary objection arguing the appeal was time-barred under the Law of Marriage Act (LMA) and filed in the wrong registry. The court determined the appeal was filed on 13 December 2023 (per eCMS records), exceeding the 45-day deadline from the 26 October 2023 judgment. The Appellant claimed electronic filing on 9 December 2023 (a non-working day) but the court applied Rule 21 of the Electronic Filing Rules, which deemed the appeal filed on the next working day (11 December 2023), still beyond the deadline. The court upheld the objection, dismissed the appeal, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Issues
- The court evaluated if the appeal was filed in the wrong registry. The Respondent argued section 80(2) of the LMA and Rule 37(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules require appeals to be filed in the subordinate court that issued the decision. The Appellant sought to invoke overriding objectives to cure this procedural error, but the judge held that filing in the wrong registry is a mandatory procedural requirement under current law and could not be excused by the eCMS system.
- The court determined whether the appeal was filed beyond the 45-day deadline under section 80(2) of the Law of Marriage Act (LMA) and Rule 37(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules. The Appellant claimed the appeal was filed online on 09 December 2023, while the Respondent argued it was filed on 13 December 2023, which was the 48th day after the 26 October 2023 judgment. The judge concluded the appeal was time-barred due to non-compliance with the 45-day rule.
- The court addressed discrepancies in the filing date: the Petition was stamped on 09 December 2023 (a Saturday and public holiday), but the eCMS records showed lodgment on 13 December 2023. The Appellant cited Rule 21 of the Electronic Filing Rules, arguing submission before midnight on 09 December constituted valid filing. The Respondent countered that payment and lodgment on a non-working day delayed filing until the next working day (11 December 2023), but the eCMS lodgment on 13 December 2023 rendered the appeal out of time.
Holdings
The court upheld the Respondent's preliminary objection, finding that the appeal was filed out of time and dismissing it. The appeal was filed on 13 December 2023, which exceeded the 45-day period under section 80(2) of the Law of Marriage Act. The court emphasized that limitation of time is a pure point of law affecting jurisdiction, and thus the appeal is null and void. While the appeal was also filed in the wrong registry, the court did not dismiss it on that basis but required the Appellant to file it in the correct registry.
Remedies
- Given the appeal's dismissal and its origin in a matrimonial matter, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs, with no costs awarded to either side.
- The appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the 45-day deadline stipulated by the Law of Marriage Act, Cap 29 RE 2019, and the court found no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that appeals must be filed within the statutory time limit under the Law of Limitation Act (LLA) and that exceeding this limit deprives the court of jurisdiction. It also addressed the procedural requirement for appeals to be filed in the correct registry under the Law of Marriage Act (LMA) and the Matrimonial Proceedings Rules, emphasizing that these rules cannot be cured by the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) when they affect jurisdiction. Additionally, the court considered the interpretation of electronic filing dates under the Judicature and Application of Laws (Electronic Filing) Rules 2018, particularly Rule 21, which states that documents filed on weekends or public holidays are deemed filed on the next working day.
Precedent Name
- Njake Enterprises Limited v. Blue Rock Limited and Another
- Chris George Kasalile v. Tanzania Institute of Education & Another
- Martin D. Kumalija and 117 Others v. Iron and Steel Ltd
- Ali Shaban and 48 Others v. Tanzania National Roads Agency (TANROADS) and Another
- John Chuwa v. Anthony Ciza
- Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. v. West End Distributors Limited
- Emmanuel Bakundukize (Kendrumo) and 9 Others v. Aloycsius Benedictor Rutaihwa
- The Soitasambu Village Council v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd
- Swilla Secondary School v. Japhet Petrol
- M/S George
- Sebastian Sanga v. Flavian Aloyce Badanga
- Misingwi Shilumba v. Kanuda Njile
- Bakari Mohamed v. Hadija John
- John Barnabas v. Hadija Shomari
- Shose Sinare v. Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd
Cited Statute
- Judicature and Application of Laws (Electronic Filing) Rules 2018, GN. No. 148 of 2018
- Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 RE 2019
- Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 RE 2019
- Law of Marriage Act, Cap 29 RE 2019
- Law of Marriage Act (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules GN No. 136 of 1971
Judge Name
OMARI
Passage Text
- "The law is settled that the issue of jurisdiction for any court is basic as it goes to the very root of the authority of the court or tribunal to adjudicate upon cases or disputes. Courts or tribunals are enjoined not to entertain any matter which is time barred and in any event they did so, the Court unsparingly declared the proceedings and the consequential orders a nullity." (emphasis supplied)
- "A document shall be considered to have been filed if it is submitted through the electronic filing system before midnight, East African time, on the date it is submitted, unless a specific time is set by the court or it is rejected." (emphasis supplied)
- "A document submitted at or after midnight or on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday shall, unless it is rejected by the court, be considered filed the next working day."