Pangea Minerals Limited vs Numet (Civil Appeal No. 2581 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 619 (2 June 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT TABORA ( CORAM: LILA. 3.A.. MASOUD, 3.A. And MLACHA, 3.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2581 OF 2025 PANGEA MINERALS LIMITED ............................................... APPELLANT VERSUS NUMET .......................................................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Shinyanga) (Mwakahesva, 3 .^ dated the 27th day of September, 2024 in Misc. Labour Application No. 20231220000028102 of 2023 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27th April & 2n d June, 2026 LILA, J.A.: In its ruling in respect of an application for extension of time in Misc. Labour Application No. 28102 of 2023, the High Court granted the Respondent (NUMET) extension of time to lodge both a notice of appeal to this Court and a letter requesting for copies of judgment, decree, proceedings and exhibits with a view to lodging an appeal to this Court. In that application, the High Court was moved under section 11(1) of

the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 R. E. 2019 (the AJA), Rule 24(1), (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (0 and 24 (3) (a), (b), (c) (d), Rule 55(3) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007 to extend time within which to file notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal and to extend time within which to lodge a letter to the Registrar of the High Court requesting for copies of judgment, decree, proceedings and exhibits for appeal purposes to the Court against the above stated decision of the High Court. The application was actually prompted by the appellant's appeal to the Court (Civil Appeal No. 256 of 2022) being struck out for being time barred on account of the respondent's concession to the point of objection raised by the appellant that the aforesaid letter to the Registrar of the High Court was missing in the record of appeal. The High Court heard the parties and granted both prayers. Accordingly, the respondent lodged Civil Appeal No. 1393 of 2024. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court granting extension of time, the appellant lodged the present appeal to challenge that decision. In challenging the High Court decision before the Court, the appellant fronted three grounds of appeal as hereunder reproduced verbatim: -

'7. The Honourable High Court Judge erred in law by determining and granting an application for extension o f time to lodge a letter requesting copies o f judgment, decree, proceedings and exhibits without the requisite jurisdiction. 2. The Honourable High Court Judge erred in law for granting the application for extension o f time based on unpleaded grounds or matters and which were not addressed by the parties during the hearing. 3. The Honourable High Court Judge erred in law for granting the application for extension o f time to file a Notice o f Appeal and letter requesting copies o fjudgment, decree, proceedings and exhibits." Mr. Faustin Anton Malongo and Ms. Caroline Lucas Kivuyo, both learned advocates, appeared for the appellant whereas, Mr. Alhaji Abubakar Majogoro, also learned advocate, appeared for the respondent At the outset, Mr. Majogoro, exhibiting his professionalism, readily conceded to the complaints in grounds one (1) and three (3) of appeal that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear, determine and grant an application for extension of time to file a letter to the Registrar of the High Court requesting for copies of the proceedings, judgment, decree and exhibits and that the High Court erred to hear and determine the

omnibus application in that they were grounded on different laws. In view of that, he found no difficult to agree with the appellant that the appeal is meritorious and should be allowed with the consequences that the order extending time to file the notice of appeal and the aforesaid letter to the Registrar of the High Court be quashed and set aside with no order for payment of costs as the matter stemmed from a labour dispute. Mr. Malongo, on the other hand, had no qualms with the course taken by Mr. Majogoro and urged the Court to agree with him. Upon our consideration of the concurrent position taken by the parties' learned advocates and examination of the record of appeal, we entirely agree with them that the appeal has merit and must succeed. In our view, the two grounds of appeal raise these issues to be determined by the Court. Ground one (1) of appeal raises an issue whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant an application for extension of time to file a letter requesting for copies of proceedings, judgment, decree and exhibits (henceforth the appeal documents). In this respect, it is trite law that jurisdiction is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed or conferred by convenience of the

parties or perceived by necessity. In the case of Isihaka Mzee Mwinchande Vs Hadija Isihaka, Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2010 (unreported) cited in Commissioner General TRA vs Mohamed Al- Salim & Another [2019] TZCA 647, the Court said: "...the term "jurisdiction" connotes the limits which are imposed by statute upon the power o f a validly constituted court to hear and determine issues between parties seeking to avail themselves o f its process." The High Court's mandate in extending time is expressly provided under section 11(1) of the AJA that: - "Subject to subsection (2), the High Court or, where an appeal lies from a subordinate court exercising extended powers, the subordinate court concerned, may extend time for giving notice o f intention to appeal from a judgment of the High Court or o f the subordinate court concerned, for making an application for leave to appeal or for a certificate that the case is a fit case for appeal, notwithstanding that the time for giving notice or making the application has already expired. "(Emphases added)

In the light of this provision, the High Court's mandate to extend time to file documents to the Court is limited to three specific matters; to lodge/give notice of intention to appeal, to apply for leave to appeal; and to apply for a certificate that the case is fit for appeal. It does not empower the High Court to extend time for lodging a letter requesting the Registrar to supply copies of documents. In Hirji Abdallah Kapikulila vs Ncba Bank Tanzania Limited [2022] TZCA 287 case cited by the appellant, the Court held that "It follows in ourjudgment that it was not open and indeed irregular for the learned Judge o f the High Court to grant an extension o f time to the respondent to submit a letter requesting to be a vailed with a copy o f the proceedings, ruling and drawn order for purposes o f appeal" The above said, ground one (1) of appeal has merit and we firmly hold that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in granting the prayer for lodging a letter to the Registrar of the High Court requesting for copies of appeal documents. Ground three (3) of appeal raises an issue whether the High Court Judge erred in law for entertaining and granting an omnibus application. It was common ground that there were two prayers in the

application lodged in the High Court for extension of time, hence an omnibus application. The two prayers are governed by two different statutes and are grantable by two different fora. An application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal to the Court is tenable by the High Court under section 11(1) of the AJA, whereas the application for extension of time to lodge a letter to the Registrar requesting for appeal documents is entertainable by the Court under section 10 of the Rules. The law is settled that such omnibus applications are incompetent. See; Rutagatina C.L. vs Advocates Committee & Another [2011] TZCA 495 and Alex Maganga vs Abubakari Mkatile & Another [2016] TZCA 789. An incompetent application cannot yield competent orders. In the result, this ground has merit and we allow it. In the end, like the learned counsel for the parties, we find no compelling reasons to discuss the second ground of appeal as our holdings in the above two grounds disposes of this appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is hereby allowed, the ruling and the order of the High Court delivered on 21s t June 2024 in Misc. Labour Application No. 28102 of 2023 granting extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal and a letter to the Registrar of the High

Court requesting for supply of appeal documents, are hereby, respectively, quashed and set aside with no order for costs. DATED at DODOMA this 1st day of June, 2026. S. A. LILA JUSTICE OF APPEAL B. S. MASOUD JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. M. MLACHA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered virtually this 2n d day of June, 2026 in the presence of Ms. Caroline Lucas Kivuyo, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Alhaji Majoqoro, learned counsel for the respondent and Ms. Rehema Makakala, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. " COURT OF APPEAL I Z m R. W. CHAUNGU d V h f d i i t v REGISTRAR