Charles Kuzenza vs Simon s/o Kulwa & Others (Civil Application No. 1384 of 2024) [2025] TZCA 1204 (18 November 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1384 OF 2024 CHARLES KUZENZA. APPLICANT VERSUS SIMON S/O KULWA MATHEO BULEBI .... FIDEL BUNDALA KABOTA MFAUME .1 st RESPONDENT 2 nd RESPONDENT 3 rd RESPONDENT ,4™ RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time within which to file an application for extension of time to lodge a Notice of Appeal on a second bite arising from decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Tabora) 11th & 18* November, 2025 KITUSI. J.A.: This is a second bite application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal, after the earlier application was refused by the High Court of Tanzania (Rumanyika, J as he then was) on 14th November, 2016. The application is supported by an affidavit of Charles Kuzenza, the applicant, who appeared in person to prosecute it. He also filed written submissions which he mainly relied on. ( Rumanvika. dated the 14th day of November, 2016 in Miscellaneous. Land Case Application No. 121 of 2016 RULING l There is no evidence of the respondents having filed any affidavit in reply but they made written and oral submissions. The respondent's main contention is that this second bite application is hopelessly time barred. The question whether the application is within the prescribed time limit must be determined first because it touches on the competence of that application and also the court's jurisdiction. Although the notice of motion presented by the applicant only cites ruie 10 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) without mention of rule 45A (1), it is my considered view that I have the requisite jurisdiction under both provisions. The question again is still whether the application is within time. The applicant made general accounts for the delay as having been caused by illness, economic hardship and at times distraction by children of the respondent, which he had to deal with. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that there is no account for the period from 2016 when judgment of the High Court in Misc. Land Case Appeal No. 45 of 2010 was given to 2024 when the applicant made the first application for extension of time. They accused the applicant of enjoying these protracted litigations despite consistently losing. While it is settled law that one has to account for every day of the delay (Bushiri Hassan v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 2 of 2007 [2008] TZCA 220, and that the applicant must demonstrate 2 diligence within reasonable time (Lyamuya Construction Company Limited v. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christians Association of Tanzania, Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 [2011] TZCA 4, the applicant has come to Court after 8 years which is a very long time, with lame excuses for explanation. This is an abuse of the Court process and it offends the principle that ligation must come to an end. I therefore agree with the respondents that the application is time barred. The application being hopelessly time barred is dismissed with costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 14th day of November, 2025. I.P. KITUSI JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Ruling delivered this 18th day of November, 2025 in the presence of the Applicant in person, unrepresented and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents present in person unrepresented through video conference and Mr. Fidelis Choka, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the R. W. CHAUNGU DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL