Automated Summary
Key Facts
Michael Tugara Chacha (applicant) sought an extension to file an application to set aside a dismissal order in Misc. Land Application No.316 of 2016, which was previously dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant claimed diligent pursuit of restoration efforts and cited a 29-day delay in obtaining court copies. The respondent argued the applicant’s repeated failures to prosecute prior applications demonstrated negligence, and the alleged illegality in the dismissal order was not apparent on the face of the record. The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient cause for the 20-month delay and no valid grounds for the extension request.
Issues
- Whether the applicant's delay in filing the application was with sufficient cause as required by law, considering their history of failed applications and lack of evidence for the claimed delay in obtaining court documents.
- Whether the dismissal order in a prior application (Misc. Land Application No.214 of 2019) was illegal on its face, as alleged by the applicant to justify the current extension request.
Holdings
- The court found that the alleged illegality in the dismissal order was not apparent on the face of the record and thus could not justify the delay. The applicant's claims of procedural errors in prior cases were deemed unsubstantiated without clear evidence.
- The court dismissed the application for extension of time because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, which was attributed to negligence. The applicant's repeated failures to prosecute prior applications and lack of evidence for the claimed delay further undermined the request.
Remedies
The court dismissed the applicant's request for an extension of time to file an application to set aside a dismissal order. The ruling states that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay and that the alleged illegality was not apparent on the face of the record. The application is therefore dismissed with costs for want of merit.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized that applications for extension of time to file are entirely within the court's discretion and require sufficient cause to justify the delay. It also highlighted the importance of demonstrating diligence in pursuing legal actions, as apathy or negligence cannot warrant an extension. Additionally, the court reiterated that alleged illegality must be apparent on the face of the record to qualify as sufficient cause for an extension.
Precedent Name
- Lyamuya Construction Company Limited vs. Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania
- Moto Matiko Mabanga vs. Ophir Energy PLC & Others
- MPS Oil Tanzania Limited And 2 Others vs. CITI Bank Tanzania Limited
- Yusuph Same & Another vs. Hadija Yusuph
- Mumello vs. Bank of Tanzania
Cited Statute
Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 RE 2019
Judge Name
V.L. MAKANI
Passage Text
- It is apparent that the applicant in this present application has failed to account for the period of the delay which in my view was caused by applicants' negligence.
- In the present application the illegality alleged... cannot be taken to be a reason for the delay by the applicant to file application for revision.
- It is a settled principle of the law that an application for extension of time is entirely the discretion of the court to grant or refuse it, and extension of time may only be granted where it has been sufficiently established that the delay was with sufficient cause.