Automated Summary
Key Facts
Salimu Ramadhani applied for an extension of time to file a review of a judgment delivered on 2022-03-04 in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2021. He received the judgment copy on 2022-04-14, but the 30-day grace period had already expired. The application was filed on 2022-10-24, resulting in a 193-day delay. The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to justify the delay and no clear legal error in the original judgment regarding the interpretation of Mariam Abdallah's testimony.
Issues
- The court addressed whether the applicant met the legal requirements for extending the time to file a review, including demonstrating that the delay was not inordinate, showing diligence, and proving the existence of a legally sufficient reason such as a glaring illegality in the judgment. The applicant cited financial hardship and efforts to seek legal advice, but the court found these reasons unsupported by evidence and insufficient under established legal principles.
- The court examined whether the alleged misinterpretation of Mariam Abdallah's testimony as a wife of the respondent (instead of the applicant) constituted a glaring illegality on the face of the record. The court concluded that this was an evidential issue resolved by the lower courts, not a self-evident legal error requiring correction via review. The applicant's argument relied on submissions rather than pleaded facts in the affidavit, which the court deemed insufficient under the law.
Holdings
- The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good or sufficient cause for extending the time to file a review application. The delay of 193 days (6 months and 12 days) was deemed inordinate, and the applicant did not account for all days of delay or show diligence. The applicant's claims of consulting various offices and financial difficulties were not supported by sufficient evidence.
- The court determined that the alleged illegality in the impugned judgment (misinterpretation of Mariam Abdallah's testimony) was not pleaded in the affidavit and therefore could not be raised in written submissions. Even if considered, the error was not apparent on the face of the record, as it involved evidential facts resolved by three courts.
- The court concluded that the application for review was devoid of merits and dismissed it with costs. The applicant did not meet the conditions for extension of time as outlined in precedent cases, particularly the requirement for a glaring error on the face of the record.
Remedies
The court dismissed the applicant's request for an extension of time to file a review, finding no good or sufficient cause. The application was rejected with costs awarded to the respondent.
Legal Principles
- The court ruled that the applicant's submissions about alleged illegality in the judgment were inadmissible as they were not pleaded in the affidavit. This reflects the principle that oral submissions or arguments cannot substitute for evidence in affidavits, as established in cases like Bi. Nunugha Labu Gewe vs Parmi Daniel Gobre.
- The court emphasized that judicial review requires an error apparent on the face of the record, which must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring elaborate reasoning. This aligns with the principle that judicial discretion to extend time for review must be exercised based on clear legal errors, as outlined in cases like Chandrakant Joshubhai Patel v Republic and East African Development Bank Vs. Blueline Enterprises.
Precedent Name
- Alliance Insurance Corporation Ltd vs. Arusha Art Ltd
- Registered Trustees of the Archdiocese of Dar es Salaam vs. The Chairman, Bunju Village Government & 11 Others
- Bi. Nunugha Labu Gewe vs Parmi Daniel Gobre
- Lyamuya Construction Company Limited vs. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania
- Ondieck Nundu vs. Wilson Kasuku Saroge
- Chandrakant Joshubhai Patel v Republic
- Issack Sebegele v. Tanzania Portland Cement
- Airtel Tanzania Ltd vs Misterlight Electrical Installation Co. Ltd & Another
- Edward Msago vs. Dragon Security
Cited Statute
Law of Limitation Act
Judge Name
Manyanda
Passage Text
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be such as can be seen by one who runs and reads, that is, an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
- In the upshot... I find the application devoid of merits, there is no good or sufficient cause for this Court to exercise its discretionary power to extend the time...
- In the instant matter... this issue is a pure evidential fact. There is no point of law or an error on the face of the record.