Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, Mariam Mbale, sought an extension of time to serve the respondent, Fidellis Mawona, with the Record of Appeal in a matrimonial matter. The delay stemmed from the respondent's failure to provide an address for service as required by Rule 86(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The Court granted the application, allowing the applicant seven days from April 19, 2022, to serve the record. The respondent did not oppose the application, but the Court evaluated its merits and found it justified under Rule 10.
Issues
The court considered the applicant's request for an extension of time to serve the respondent with a copy of the appeal record, addressing whether the delay was attributable to the applicant's negligence or if the respondent's failure to provide an address for service (as required by Rule 86(1)) constituted sufficient 'good cause' under Rule 10. The court evaluated factors including the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, diligence of the applicant, and potential prejudice to the respondent if time were extended.
Holdings
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania granted the applicant's request for an extension of time to serve the record of appeal on the respondent. The court found that the applicant provided reasonable cause, as the respondent had not provided their address for service as required by the rules, and thus the delay was not due to the applicant's negligence. The application was deemed meritorious, and serving the record out of time would not occasion any failure of justice.
Remedies
- The application for extension of time to serve the record of appeal was granted. The applicant was directed to serve the respondent within seven days from the ruling's delivery. No costs order was made.
- The applicant was directed to serve the copy of the record of appeal on the respondent within seven (7) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
- Considering the circumstances of this case, no order was made as to costs.
Legal Principles
The Court of Appeal applied Rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, which grants the court discretionary power to extend time for procedural acts if 'good cause' is shown. The ruling emphasized that 'good cause' is context-dependent and requires evaluation of factors including promptness of the application, the applicant's diligence, and whether justice would be compromised by the delay. This aligns with prior decisions like Tanga Cement Co. Ltd v. Masangwa (2001) and Tumsifu Kimaro v. Mshindo (2017), which establish that the court must weigh the length of delay, reasons for delay, potential prejudice to the respondent, and the importance of the legal issue at stake when exercising this discretion.
Precedent Name
- Mgombaeka Investment Company Limited and Two Others v. DCB Commercial Bank PLC
- Oswald Masatu Mwizarubi vs. Tanzania Fish Processing Ltd
- Tumsifu Kimaro (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Eliamini Kimaro) vs. Mohamed Mshindo
- Tanga Cement Company Limited v. Jumanne D. Masangwa and Amos A. Mwalwanda
Cited Statute
Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009
Judge Name
A. M. MWAMPASHI
Passage Text
- Guided by the foregoing principles... the Court must consider factors such as the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the degree of prejudice the respondent stands to suffer if time is extended, whether the applicant was diligent, and whether there is a point of law of sufficient importance.
- The Court may, upon good cause shown, extend the time limited by these Rules or by any decision of the High Court or tribunal, for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the expiration of that time and whether before or after the doing of the act; and any reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to that time so extended.
- I am satisfied that the applicant has given reasonable cause as to why he could not serve the copies of the record of appeal on the respondent within the prescribed period of seven (7) days... The delay was attributed by the fact that the respondent had not given his address for service as required by rule 86 (1) of the Rules.