| dc.description | ABDUL IBRAHIM. VERSUS AYUBU MWALEMBA AND ANOTHER
COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA
AT MBEYA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 642/06 OF 2021
(Application from the Ruling of the High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya)(Karavemaha, J) dated the 21st day of October, 2021 In Misc. Land Application No. 61 of 2021)
CORAM: RUMANYIKA, J.A
FLY NOTES
Application-extension of time- preliminary objections-whether there is time limit to lodge application for extension of time to file leave to appeal under Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009
Application –extension of time-whether the court has power to grant extension of time
BRIEF FACTS
This is an application for extension of time within which the applicant to file an appeal against the decision of the High Court (Karayemaha, J.) dated 21.10.2021 in Misc. Land Application No. 61 of 2021. It is brought under rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 and supported by an affidavit of Abdul Ibrahim and opposed by affidavits in reply deposed by Ayubu Mwalemba and Mtawa Kapalata.
When the application was called on 03/10/2022 for hearing, the applicant appeared in person unrepresented, whereas Mr. Isaya Mwanri, learned counsel appeared for the respondents. During the hearing the respondents counsel addressed the court on their filed preliminary objections to the effects that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the application contravened the provisions of rule 45 (a) (b) of the Rules because the dismissal of the applicant's application for leave to appeal being time barred, the applicant should have appealed or gone back to the High Court for extension of time. The second preliminary objection was that the present application for extension of time contravened the provisions of Rule 45 (a) (1) (b) of the Rules as it was time barred and liable to be struck out because the impugned decision was delivered on25/10/2021 and the applicant filed the present application on 17/11/2021 which is nine days far beyond the fourteen days prescribed by law. Both parties was heard and the application struck out with costs.
ISSUES
1. Whether there is time limit to lodge application for extension of time to file leave to appeal under Rule 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009
2. Whether the court has power to grant extension of time
HELD:
1. With great respect, the preliminary objection which concerns with time bar to the present application is misconceived. Frankly speaking, I did not understand if Mr. Mwanri meant it that, an application for extension of time to take an action in a court of law can be time barred. I think, if the court accedes to that learned counsel's noble contention and proposition, which I am not ready to accept, then, God forbid the clear provisions of rule 10 of the Rules would have been redundant and meaningless.
2. It is a trite law that for an application for extension of time to succeed, the bottom line is good cause shown by the applicant and it is determined at the Court's discretion. The Application was struck out with costs
STATUTORY PROVISION REFEERED TO;
1. Rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
2. Rule 45 (a) (1) (b) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009
Applicant appeared in person,
Isaya Mwanri for the respondent. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | HELD:
1. With great respect, the preliminary objection which concerns with time bar to the present application is misconceived. Frankly speaking, I did not understand if Mr. Mwanri meant it that, an application for extension of time to take an action in a court of law can be time barred. I think, if the court accedes to that learned counsel's noble contention and proposition, which I am not ready to accept, then, God forbid the clear provisions of rule 10 of the Rules would have been redundant and meaningless.
2. It is a trite law that for an application for extension of time to succeed, the bottom line is good cause shown by the applicant and it is determined at the Court's discretion. The Application was struck out with costs | en_US |
