Automated Summary
Key Facts
Applicant Marietha Tluway sought an extension of time to file a revision application in Land Application No. 235 of 2021, which was originally decided by the District Land and Housing Tribunal on 13/5/2022. The applicant's delay was attributed to technical issues arising from the prosecution of Land Appeal No. 58 of 2022 at the High Court of Tanzania, Arusha, which was struck out on 21/2/2023. The court granted a 30-day extension from the ruling date (28/9/2023) as the delay was deemed reasonable under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, citing precedents like Denis T. Mkasa v. Farida Hamza and Bank M. (Tanzania) Limited v. Enock Mwakyusa.
Issues
- The applicant also contended that the ward tribunal's decision was illegal due to the failure to disclose the gender and status of its members, as required by law. This was supported by references to relevant case law.
- Another key issue was the trial tribunal's jurisdiction and the claim that the applicant was condemned without being heard. The applicant's legal representative cited precedents where such irregularities were deemed sufficient cause for an extension.
- The court had to determine if the applicant's technical delay, caused by the prosecution of Land Appeal No. 58 of 2022, is a sufficient reason under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act to grant an extension of time for filing the application for revision. The applicant argued that such delays, when pleaded and demonstrated, can be considered valid grounds for extension.
Holdings
The court granted the applicant a 30-day extension to file an application for revision in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 235 of 2021, finding that the technical delay caused by prosecuting Land Appeal No. 58 of 2022 (which was struck out on 21/2/2023) constituted sufficient cause under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act. The applicant filed the instant application on 10/3/2023, 17 days after the appeal was withdrawn, which the court deemed not an inordinate delay.
Remedies
- The costs of the instant application are to follow the events of the proceedings, as determined by the court's ruling on 28/9/2023.
- The applicant is granted an extension of 30 days from the date of this ruling to lodge an application for revision in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 235 of 2021.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that technical delays caused by prosecuting an appeal in good faith can constitute sufficient cause for an extension of time under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act. This was supported by precedents like Denis T. Mkasa v. Farida Hamza (Civil Application No. 407 of 2020) and Bank M. (Tanzania) Limited v. Enock Mwakyusa (Civil Application No. 520/18 of 2017), which established that such delays, when pleaded and demonstrated, justify extensions. The applicant's prompt filing (17 days after the appeal was struck out) further reinforced her diligence.
Precedent Name
- 11 Tanga Cement Co. v. Jumanne Masangwa and another
- Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence National Service v. Devram Valambia
- Dar es Salaam City Council v. Jayantilal P. Rajan
- Christopha Cosmas v. Furaha Evarist
- Martha Daniel v. Peter Thomas Nko
- Ramadhani Nyoni v. M/s Haule & Company Advocates
- Kulunga and Company Advocate v. National Bank of Commerce Ltd
- Christopher Wantora v. Masero Meck Makura
- Tanzania Revenue Authority v. Tango Transport Co. Ltd
- VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited & 2 others v. Citibank Tanzania Limited
- Bharya Engineering & Contracting Co. Ltd v Hamoud Ahmed Nassor
- Hamis Mohamed v. Mtumwa Moshi
- Bertha Bwire v Alex Maqanga
- Bushiri Hassan v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo
- Bank M. (Tanzania) Limited v. Enock Mwakyusa
- Denis T. Mkasa v. Farida Hamza & another
- Bariki Israel v Republic
- Lyamuya Construction Company Limited v. Board of Registered Trustees
- Wambele Mtumwa Shahame v. Mohamed Hamis
- Samwell Mussa Nq'omango v. A.I.C. (T) Ufundi
Cited Statute
Law of Limitation Act [CAP 89 R.E 2019]
Judge Name
Barthy
Passage Text
- The law is settled that, technical delay constitutes sufficient cause for extension of time, if it is pleaded in the supporting affidavit and sufficient demonstrated by the applicant.
- After the latter application was struck out; the applicant took hardly a month to file the present application seeking for extension of time to file an appeal. In other words, the applicant was diligent all along to file an appeal.
- Consequently, I find that the applicant has advanced sufficient reason for this court to consider granting extension of time. Thus, I grant the applicant the period of 30 days from the date of this ruling within which to lodge the application for revision. Costs to follow events.