Cleophas M. Manyangu vs Association of Local Authorities of Tanzania (Civil Appeal No. 225 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 506 (7 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES S A I A A M (CO R AM: LEVIRA. J.A .r MASHAKA. 3.A. And NGWEMBE. J J U CIVIL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2023 CLEOPHAS M. M A N Y A N G U .................................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF T A N Z A N IA ...............RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam) (Mqancia. J .- ) dated 14th day of March, 2023 in Miscellaneous Lahnur application No. 7 of 2023 JU D G M E N T OF TH E C O U R T 16th April & 07th May, 2026 N G W EM B E. JA.: The appellant, Cleophas Manyangu, appealed to the Court challenging the grant of extension of time issued by the High Court of Tanzania at Labour Division in Miscellaneous Labour Application No. 7 of 2023. The High Court granted 7 days extension of time to the respondent to file application for restoration of the dismissed application for revision No. 453 of 2021. According to the record of appeal, the basis for extension of time was on the alleged existence of illegalities in terms of res judicata of the matter and lack of jurisdiction of the trial tribunal. i

At the outset, the genesis of the dispute arose from termination of the employment. The respondent, Association of Local Authorities of Tanzania known by its acronym as ALAT a government entity responsible for advising the central government on matters related to local government was the employer of the appellant. However, after expiry of his four years employment contract, that is from 2013 to 2017, his employment was not renewed and according to the record of appeal, his contract officially ended on 12/2/2018. The appellant was dissatisfied with the ending of his employment contract, he thus successfully, lodged a labour dispute No. CMA/DSM/ILA/415/18/149 at the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (the CMA). The respondent was dissatisfied with the outcome, hence lodged an application for revision No. 453 of 2021 before the High Court of Tanzania Labour Division. In the course, on 12th May, 2022, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution. Consequently, after being delayed to lodge an application for restoration of the dismissed revision, the respondent on 13th January, 2023 lodged an application for extension of time, which application was granted and the respondent was ordered within seven (7) days to file an application for restoration of the dismissed revision. In the contrary, the appellant was dissatisfied, hence the instant appeal with two grounds namely:

1. The learned Judge m isdirected him selfin law and facts fo r failure to exercise h is discretion ju d iciou sly fo r granting the application fo r extension o f tim e based on res judicata.
2. The learned Judge having found that the ju risd ictio n a l issue raised by the respondent could not be determ ined w ithout involving the CMA records. I t was an indication that the alleged ju risd ictio n a l issue was not obvious, involved long drawn argum ents fo r it to qualify as a ground fo r extension o f time. At the hearing, Mr. Cleophas Manyangu entered appearance in person unrepresented, while Mr. Daniel Nyakiha, learned Senior State Attorney assisted by Mr. Francis Wisdom and Mr. Pantaleo Urasa, both learned State Attorneys appeared for the respondent. At the earliest, Mr. Manyangu adopted his written arguments filed in Court on 10th July, 2023 to form part of his oral submission whereas he briefly narrated the background of his employment with the respondent and how he was terminated. Also, he narrated his successful challenge of his termination before the CMA. He thus amplified his argument that the epicentre of his appeal is on misuse of discretionary powers of the learned Judge exercised injudiciously in granting extension of time. He pointed out that extension of time is purely in discretionary powers of the court exercised judiciously. He referred the Court

to the case of Lyamuya Construction Company Limited v. Board of Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania, (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 4 (3 October 2011). Arguing on the doctrine of res judicata which is the basis of his first ground of appeal, Mr. Manyangu argued forcefully by referring the Court to page 103 of the record of appeal that, the doctrine of res judicata by its nature prohibit re-litigation of a suit of a same cause of action and by the same parties. He also referred the Court to section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E. 2023 and argued that since there was no previous case which was litigated by the parties on the same cause of action, therefore, the doctrine of res judicata is not one of the illegalities recognized by the Court in Lyamuya's case. However, the trial court at pages 74 and 75 of the record of appeal granted extension of time due to the alleged illegality based on res judicata contrary to the existing principles of law. Hence, misapplication of the discretionary powers by the trial court. On lack of jurisdiction of the CMA, Mr. Manyangu vehemently argued that, in Lyamuya's case, the issue of jurisdiction was not one of the illegalities capable of extending time. More so, he argued that illegality must be apparent on the face of the record as we decided in the case of Star Media (Tanzania) Limited v. The Tanzania Revenue Authority, (Civil

Appeal No. 211 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 191 (7 May 2021) where we observed that for a party to succeed on arguing illegality in an application for extension of time, it must be one that is obvious. Illegality should not involve long drawn arguments for it to qualify as a ground for extension of time. He insisted that the respondent was not a public institution thus, the appellant was not a public servant. Therefore, it was a misconception to treat him as a public servant in trying to discredit the jurisdiction of the CMA. In the contrary the CMA was seized with jurisdiction to determine the labour dispute as it did. In conclusion, Mr. Manyangu submitted that since the respondent had no material facts placed before the trial court to grant extension of time, the learned Judge misused his discretion to grant extension of time. He thus, implored the Court to allow the appeal and quash the decision of the High Court. In response, Mr. Nyakiha argued briefly in amplifying his written submissions filed in Court on 21st August, 2023 which he, at the earnest prayed to adopt to form part of his oral submission. That, when a party allege illegality on the application for extension of time, the trial court should refrain from going into the merits of the matter. He referred the Court to our decision 5

in the case of Victoria Real Estate D evelop m ent Limited v. Tanzania Investment Bank & Others (Civil Application No. 225 of 2014) [2015] TZCA 78 (10 July 2015), where the Court considered that, it is now settled that a court hearing an application should restrain from considering the substantive issues that are to be dealt with by appellate court. This is in order to avoid making decisions on the substantive issues before the appeal itself is heard. He argued further that the trial Judge could not determine the illegalities in question but rather grant extension of time for same to be determined on merits. Since the respondent alleged in its pleadings, res ju dicata and lack of jurisdiction of the CMA, it was enough for the trial court to extend time without going into details, he argued. That, the doctrine of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction of the trial tribunal are points of law, therefore, the trial court was right to grant extension of time based on illegalities of the CMA's decision. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of merits. In rejoinder, Mr. Manyangu reiterated his submission in chief and implored the Court to allow the appeal as prayed. We have dispassionately considered both arguments of the parties and perused their respective written arguments and also, we have perused the 6

f appeal, we find the epicentre of the disputes in this appeal subject ur determination is, whether the alleged illegalities based on the doctrine of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction of the CMA are capable of granting extension of time as the trial Judge did. Perusing the pleadings of the trial court at page 13 and 14 of the record of appeal, it is clear that the respondent's affidavit in paragraph 14 alleged that: "Kuna makosa ya kisheria (illegalities) katika Tuzo iliyotolewa na Tume ya Usuluhishi na Uamuzi kwani haikuwa na Mamlaka Kisheria ya kuamua mgogoro kwa kuwa Mieta maombi n i Taasisi ya Umma hivyo Tume Hikosa mamlaka kisheria kusikiliza na kuamua mgogoro huu." In brief the contents of the excerpt above intended to question the jurisdiction of the CMA in its determination and decision of the dispute. Moreover, in paragraph 17 of the affidavit alleged the doctrine of res judicata as follows: "Tume ya ushuluhishi na Uamuzi ilitolea maamuzi masuaia ambayo yaiikw isha amuriwa na Tume hiyo kupitia CMA/DSM/IA/415/1S." To our understanding, the two points above are points of law which go to the root of the matter itself. When the issue of jurisdiction is raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal, same must first be settled before the court proceeds with merits of the matter before it. Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, its purpose is to avoid re-litigation of a matter which was

conclusively determined by a competent court of law or competent tribunal. The allegations of existence of illegalities on the application for extension of time, must be apparent on the face of the record without going into the details of the matter and also the court should refrain from considering substantive issues on the alleged illegalities. See Victoria Real Estate Development Limited (supra) and The Regional Manager TANROADS Lindi v. DB Shapriya and Company Limited, Civil Application No. 29 of 2012 (unreported). We are settled in our minds that the law in this area is well developed and indeed settled, when there is illegality apparent on the face of the record or it is clearly pleaded which illegality is of public importance, the court faced with that application has a legal duty to grant extension of time with a view to allow the parties to appeal or apply for revision to the superior court to determine and correct that illegality. The purpose of granting extension of time is to allow the Court to identify the alleged illegality, correct it and put the law in a right perspective. This position was promulgated by the Court in the case of Transport Equipment Ltd v, DP Valambhia [1993] T.L.R 91, where it was held: "When the p o in t a t issue is one alleging ille g a lity o f the decision being challenged, the court has a duty

even if it means extending tim e for the purpose to ascertain the point and if the alleged ille g a lity be established, to take appropriate m easures to put the m atter and the record right." See also, Mumello v. Bank of Tanzania [2006] 1 EA 227 and VIP Engineering and Marketing Ltd and 2 Others v. Citibank Tanzania Ltd (Consolidated Civil Reference 6 of 2006) [2007] TZCA 165 (26 September 2007) where the Court held: "We have already accepted it as established law in this country that where the point o f law a t issue is the illegality, o r otherwise o f the decision being challenged that by itse lf constitute sufficient reason w ithin the meaning o f rule 8 o f the rules for extending tim e." This has remained the basic principle for extension oftimewithout going into the details of the alleged illegality otherwise thecourt will be determining the matter of illegality prematurely. Equally important to note is the fact that extension of time has remained in the discretionary powers of the trial court. It is only that the trial magistrate or judge must confine in the exercise of his discretionary powers judiciously. Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition) defined judiciously to mean "w ell considered, discreet, w isely and circum spect". See; UAP 9

Insurance Tanzania Ltd v. Noble Motors Limited [2017J T.LR. 583 and Karibu Textiles Mills Ltd v. Commissioner General (TRA) (Civil Application No. 192 of 2016) [2017] TZCA 181 (15 August 2017), where the Court construed 'judicious exercise 'of powers by the court to mean, to make a decision with a sense of justice by judging the material facts having regard to the particular circumstance of each case. The long unfettered standing position of tlhe law relevant herein is that, in order for a party to be granted an extension of time to exercise any right which he failed to exercise it within time as prescribed by law, must adduce sufficient ground and reasonable cause. Reasonable ground or sufficient cause cannot and should not be universally interpreted, since each case is decided based on its own facts and circumstances. In Lyamuya's case many issues were considered including the allegations on existence of illegality in the decision sought to be appeal against or be revised, which illegality is of significant importance, is always considered as sufficient reason for extension of time. In respect of the instant appeal, we entertain no slight doubt, the trial Judge was correct to allow the application for extension of time based on two legal issues as they appear on pages 102 and 103 of the record of appeal 10

that, the jurisdiction of the CMA is questioned as well as the doctrine of res judicata. Those are fundamental issues justifying extension of time. In the event, we find the appeal devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 06th day of May, 2026. M. C. LEVIRA JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. L. MASHAKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. J. NGWEMBE JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 07th day of May, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Francis Wisdom, learned State Attorney for the Respondent also holding brief for the Appellant and Ms. Stela Mlaponi, Court clerk, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. ii