Phares Petro vs Masanja Maduhu Songa @ Wilson Masanja & Another (Civil Application No. 479 of 2026) [2026] TZCA 424 (17 April 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 479 OF 2026 PHARES PETRO....................................... VERSUS APPLICANT MASANJA MADUHU SONGA @ WILSON MASANJA BONANIA EDWARD MASANJA . ........................... ..1 st RESPONDENT 2 nd RESPONDENT (Application for Stay of Execution of the Decree of High Court of Tanzania at IS* April & 17thApril, 2026 MLACHA, J.A.: The applicant, Phares Petro, filed an application under Rules 11(3), (4), (5) (a) and (b), (6), (7) (a) (b) (c) and (d) and 48 (1) and (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules 2009 (the Rules) seeking an order for stay of execution of the decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mwanza at Mwanza in Application No. 361 of 2018, upheld by the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza in Land Appeal No. 47 of 2021 pending appeal. The applicant has lodged an appeal before the Count to challenge the decision of the High Court pursuant to which the Court is invited to Mwanza Sub - Registry) (Tiaanaa. 3.) dated 24th day of March, 2022 in Land Appeal No. 47 of 2021 RULING

grant an order for stay of execution to safeguard the interests of the applicant in the matter. When service was affected to the respondents, Masanja Maduhu Songa @ Wilson Masanja and Bonania Edward Masanja, they filed an affidavit in reply coupled with a preliminary objection which carried the complaint that, the application was filed in contravention of rule 11(4) of the Rules. Mr. Emmanuel Muyengi, leaned advocate, who appeared for the respondents, making reference to paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the applicant, submitted that, the applicant was served with execution documents on 26/2/2026 and filed the present application on 14/3/2026 which was after the lapse of 14 days contrary to rule 11(4) of the Rules which provides that, " an application for stay o f execution shaii be made within 14 days o f service o f the notice o f execution on the applicant by the executing officer or from the date he was otherwise made aware o f the existence o f an application for execution." He submitted that it was important for the application to be filed within 14 days or else it becomes time barred. He contended that the present application which was filed after 16 days was thus time barred. Citing the decision of a single Judge of the Court made in NCBA Bank (T) Ltd V. Ayubu Mtafya, Civil

Application No. 812 of 2025, he argued that, Limitation touch the jurisdiction of the Court meaning that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application which must be struck out with costs. In reply, Mr Phares agreed that the record at page 1 shows that the application was filed on 16/3/2026 which if counted from the date he became aware of the execution proceedings was over 14 days but argued that the delay was caused by network failure and absence of the Deputy Registrar from the office because he lodged it on 11/3/2026. When I engaged him to provide evidence of network failure and absence of the Deputy Registrar from office, he could not produce any. Nevertheless, he urged me to dismiss the preliminary objection. On my part, I had time to peruse the record and considered the submissions of the parties. I have the view that this matter should not detain us because it is straight forward. The applicant agree that the application was filed after 14 days contrary to rule 11(4) of the Rules. His defence was that there was network failure between 13.03.2026 when he came at the High Court and 16.03.2026 when his application was attended by the Deputy Registrar who stamped it, as appearing at page 1 of the record. The Deputy Registrar was also nowhere to be seen for consultation and directives. I find the defence put forward by the appellant to justify 3

the delay baseless and of no help to the applicant. I could not find any substance in it. And if anything, there was no any evidence to substantiate allegations. What he said was thus an afterthought which is rejected. Guided by the law and following our decision in NCBA Bank (T) Ltd (supra), I find this application to be time barred and to strike it out. I make no order for costs. DATED at DODOMA this 15th day of April, 2026 L. M. MLACHA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered virtually this 17th day of April, 2026 in the presence of the applicant in person - unrepresented, Ms. Christina Mwanandenje, Court Clerk, and in the absence of the respondents is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. 4