Amani Mafuru vs Shxbide Lugoba (Civil Appeal No. 438 of 2024; Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2022) [2026] TZCA 484 (4 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: MWANDAMBO, J.A., KENTE, J.A. And MGONYA, J J O CIVIL APPEAL NO. 438 OF 2024 AMANI MAFURU ................................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS SHXBIDE LUGOBA............................................ ................. RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza) (Morris, J.) dated the 8th day of December, 2022 in Civil Appeal No, 89 of 2022 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 29th Aprii & 4th May, 2026 MWANDAMBO, J.A.: The issue involved in this appeal is a narrow one. It revolves around the alleged improper exercise of discretion by the lower courts in an application for extension of time to appeal against a decision of the trial primary court to the district court. The appellant lost in a suit for monetary compensation of TZS 23,000,000.00 before the Primary Court of Nyamagana at Mkuyuni in a judgment delivered on 21 January 2019. Aggrieved, the appellant sought to i

appeal against that decision he was late in doing so. He thus applied for extension of time before the District Court of Nyamagana at Mwanza in Misc. Civil Application No. 19 of 2019. However, the District Court found no sufficient cause for the delay warranting exercise of discretion in his favour. It dismissed the application resulting into Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2022 before the High Court at Mwanza predicated upon three grounds but revolving around one main issue, faulting the District Court for failure to find that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay and for not considering an illegality in the case before the High Court. Morris, J who heard the appeal, dismissed it having found no merit in it. It is pertinent that in doing so, the court took into account settled legal principles guiding superior courts in interfering with the exercise of discretion by the lower courts or tribunals underscored in Mbogo & Another v. Shah [1968] EA 93. These are, one, acting on extraneous and irrelevant matters; two, omission to consider relevant matters; and, three, that the decision is plainly wrong that no court or tribunal could have made it all rolled up in one sentence, that is, discretion must be exercised judiciously.

Before us in this appeal, the appellant faults the High Court on three grounds of complaint which we take liberty to reproduce for easy reference skipping the inherent grammatical errors: 1 . That the honourable second appellate judge grossly misdirected himself in law for his failure to determine the contentions ground before him to wit; That there were sufficient reasons to move the court to grant the application for extension o f time to file an appeal from the Primary to District Court 2. That the honourable second appellate Judge grossly misdirected himself in law in disregarding the fact that the Judgment o f the Primary Court was tainted with illegalities which was good reason for extension. 3. That the honourable second appellate Judge erred in law in failing to appreciate the fact that there was evidence adduced in the Primary Court to the extent that the appellant was employed by one REHEMA KASSIM not the respondent, as such, the respondent lacked LOCUS STANDI to sue him, which constituted an illegality. Both the appellant and respondent appeared in person, unrepresented at the hearing of the appeal. The appellant who had lodged his written submissions had nothing to add and invited the Court to allow his appeal on the basis of such submissions. 3

Essentially, the appellant argues in the written submissions, reinforced by several decisions of the Court, that it was wrong for the two courts below to have failed to consider that the pointed-out illegality as a basis for exercising discretion in his favour by extending the time for lodging an appeal. The illegality is allegedly lack of locus standi by the respondent to sue the appellant who was not her employee but an employee of one Rehema. Relying on the Court's decision in Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service v. Devram P. Valambhia [1992] T.L.R. 387, the appellant criticises the High Court and the District Court for not considering illegality was sufficient for exercising discretion in his favour. Besides, the appellant faults the High Court for failure to appreciate the fact that, the delayed lodging of the appeal was attributed to by the Primary Court s failure to supply him with a copy of the judgment. According to him, that also constituted an illegality sufficient to extend the time sought. On the basis of the above, he beseeched the Court to find merit in the appeal and allow it with costs. The respondent resisted the appeal with equal force. To begin with, she contended that the absence of a copy of the decision of the trial court could not have contributed to the delay because no such copy was required 4

for the purpose of the appeal to the District Court. On the other hand, she argued forcefully that the so-called lack of locus standi was not a point constituting illegality as the same was a contentious issue during the trial as found at page 17 of the record of appeal. Furthermore, the respondent argued that, the appellant was engaged by a group of which she was its secretary thus she had requisite locus standi to sue. She invited the Court to dismiss the appeal for lack of merit. As mentioned earlier, the appeal before the High Court was against the alleged erroneous exercise of discretion by the District Court resulting into dismissal of the application for extension of time. The appellant faulted the District Court on two main grounds; failure to find that the appellant had disclosed sufficient cause for warranting an order for extension of time. The main reason under this area related to delayed supply of a copy of the judgment. The court rejected this reason as immaterial upon being satisfied that a copy of judgment was not a mandatory requirement for the purpose of appeal to the District Court. It too rejected the appellant's argument that he was allegedly denied access to peruse the court file for lack of evidence to substantiate it. 5

Upon our examination of the record of appeal, we find no reason to fault the High Court. Like the learned Judge, we agree that the appellant did not account for the delay from the date of the impugned judgment to the date the copy of it was ready for collection. The appellant has failed to persuade us that the High Court misapprehended the material before it in sustaining the District Court's decision refusing to extend time on that ground. Consequently, we find no merit in the first ground and dismiss it. Next on the illegality in the 2n d and 3r d grounds of appeal. It is trite law from D.P. VaSambhia's case (supra) reiterated in Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd v. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women s Christian Association of Tanzania [2011] TZCA 4 that, illegality can be considered as sufficient ground where it is not only apparent but also involves a point of law of sufficient importance. The High Court had regard to the above and found no substance on it mainly because it was not apparent on the face of the record as it required a long-drawn process of argument to discover it. We likewise agree with the High Court. The alleged illegality complained of does not meet the test of an illegality on a point of law of sufficient importance rather, a contentious ground of appeal. As rightly argued by the respondent, that complaint was a matter of evidence which

was rejected by the trial court. It could not have constituted an illegality and considered as a sufficient ground for extending the time to appeal. We thus find no merit in these grounds and dismiss it as well. The appeal is thus found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. DATED at MWANZA this 2n d day of May, 2026. L. E. MGONYA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 4th day of May, 2026 in the presence of the appellant and respondent in person, unrepresented and Mr. John Banene, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. L. J. S. MWANDAMBO JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. M. KENTE JUSTICE OF APPEAL A -y DEPUTY REGISTRAR y ^ ) COURT OF APPEAL A. L. KALEGEYA