Isaac Simon Ngomeni vs Stella E. Berege & Others (Civil Application No. 1334 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 231 (4 March 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1334 OF 2025 ISAAC SIMON NGOMENI .............................................................. APPLICANT VERSUS STELLA E. BEREGE................................................................ 1 st RESPONDENT TUMPALE LAUWO MWANDEMA.............................................2 nd RESPONDENT HEMED SAID NGENJE........................................................... 3 rd RESPONDENT SALUM KINGWANDE............................................................ 4 th RESPONDENT FREDRICK JUMA.................................................................. 5T H RESPONDENT GEORGE NGOMBALE MWIRU................................................6 th RESPONDENT MWITA MANYANYA.............................................................. 7™ RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time to lodge an appeal against the Decision of the Resident Magistrates' Court of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu) (Hon. J.E. Fovo, PRM - (Ext-J DR.) Dated the 19th day of November, 2025 in Extended Land Appeal No. 2 of 2020 RULING 26h February & 4h March, 2026 KITUSL J.A.: This is an application for enlargement of time within which the applicant may file an appeal against the decision of Hon. Fovo, Senior Resident Magistrate, exercising Extended Jurisdiction at Kisutu Resident Magistrates' Court. Going by the affidavits and written submissions, the following undisputed facts form the background of the case. The applicant instituted a land case at the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) of Kinondoni asserting ownership. He lost before the DLHT as well as on appeal that was heard by Hon. Fovo in his extended i

jurisdiction capacity. He sought to appeal to the Court but he did not have an easy way. First, he lodged a notice of appeal which he had to withdraw later upon realising it was filed out of time. After obtaining extension of time he lodged another notice of appeal followed by an application for leave to appeal. He had to withdraw the application subsequently when through an amendment of the law, leave to appeal ceased to be a requirement. Even then the applicant had to obtain a copy of the withdrawal order which was given to him on 21st March, 2024. Between 21st March, 2024 and 4th April, 2004, the applicant was preparing pleadings for extensions of time. Online filing derailed the applicant a bit and he had to opt for manual filing, only to have the application struck out because the names of the 6th and 7th respondents did not match with those in the notice of appeal. Yet again, the online filing system did not allow the applicant to easily file a fresh application to file a fresh application, so after obtaining a copy of the Court striking out the application on 1st July, 2025 he filed the instant application on 15th July, 2025. Only the 2n d , 5th and 7th respondents made a joint affidavit in reply in which they did not dispute most of the mile stones that the applicant went through. In the written submissions which the applicant fully relied upon, the Court is invited to treat the delay as technical delay as opposed to real 2

or actual. He cited the case of Fortunatus Masha v. William Shija & Another [1997] TLR 154. In opposition, the 2n d , 5th and 7th respondents submitted that the applicant has not accounted for everyday of the delay as required in Bushiri Hassan v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo [2008] TZCA 220. The applicant was also challenged for his failure to present affidavits of the Registry Officers who would add credence to his version of delay caused by the registry. For this the case of Mzee Mohamed Akida & Others v. Low Shek Kon & Others [2023] TZCA 36, was cited. I am going to consider the submissions in the light of technical and actual delay. As submitted by the applicant technical delay is a principle that requires the Court to take into account any period of delay when an applicant is pursuing in Court matters that are connected to the one under consideration In the written submissions the respondents' advocate has demonstrated that there are unaccounted for days within the period of technical delay. He picked two instances, one deponed to at paragraph 14 of the applicant's affidavit. The respondents criticized the applicant for filing this application about 15 days late having received copies of the necessary documents on 21st March, 2024, as stated in paragraph 14 of the applicant's affidavit. 3

Another instance is the delay of 14 days from 1st July, 2025 when he obtained a copy of the order to 15th July, 2025 when he filed the present application. With respect I have read paragraphs 14 and 18 of the applicant's affidavit where it is stated that swift filing of the applications, that is the first that was eventually struck out and the instant was impossible because the digital filing system was not responsive. In my view, the applicant has demonstrated that his application is covered by technical delay. In the case of Kibaha Housing Cooperative Society Limited (KIHOCOSO) v. Judith Yoas & Others [2023] TZCA 17836 we made this statement which I reproduce below: "...I could not see any ill motive on the part o f the applicant in the filing o f the applications. She appears to have been trying to find a solution to her problems, nothing more. I agree with counsel for the applicant that the proceedings were conducted bonafide. The time spent in the conduct o f the proceedings is therefore excusable in what is referred to as technical delay". In the same vein, it is my finding that the period of about 29 days which may be considered to have been outside the technical delay has been accounted for under paragraphs 14 and 18 of the affidavit.

In the event, I grant this application and order the applicant to file the intended appeal within sixty (60) days of the delivery of this ruling. Costs to be in the main cause. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 3rd day of March, 2026. I. P. KITUSI JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered this 4th day of March, 2026 in the presence of the Applicant in person-unrepresented, Ms. Winner Mwengela Julius, learned counsel for the Respondents and Ms. Janekisa Bukuku, Court clerk is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. A. L. KALEGEYA DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 5