Revocatus Kenedy Ntanduke vs National Microfinance Bank PLC & Another (Civil Application No. 518/14 of 2024) [2025] TZCA 1178 (10 November 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 518/14 OF 2024 REVOCATUS KENEDY NTANDUKE ............................. APPLICANT VERSUS NATIONAL MICROFINANCE BANK P LC .............. 1 st RESPONDENT DOLTHINE GENERAL BUSINESS ENTERPRISES...2 nd RESPONDENT (Application from the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Shinyanga) (Mkwizu. J.1 dated the 28th day of April, 2020 in land appeal No. 24/2018 RULING 6th & 10th November, 2025 MLACHA J.A.: By way of notice of motion made under rule 10 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the rules), the Court is moved to extend time within which the applicant can file a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Shinyanga made in Land Appeal No. 24 of 2018. The applicant appeared in person, unrepresented, whereas the respondent was represented by Mr. Stephen Kaswahili, learned advocate. i At the outset, Mr. Kaswahili moved the Court to consider a preliminary objection, notice of which was lodged to the Court at an early stage and served to the applicant. The preliminary objection has three grounds which can be paraphrased to read thus; 1. That, the application was made contrary to rule 47 and 45 A (1) (a) o f the Tanzania Court o f Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). 2. That, the application is omnibus and thus in competent. 3. That, the application was filed contrary to rule 45 A (3) o f the Rules. Submitting on ground one and three, Mr. Kaswahili made reference to rules 45A (l)(a) and 47 of the Rules which provides as under: "45A (1) Where an application for extension o f time: (a) Lodge a notice o f appeal; (b) ...... (c) .... 2 is refused by the High Court, the applicant may within fourteen days of such decision apply to the Court for extension o f time provided that such application shall be made on the same grounds 47. Where application is made either to the Court or the High Court, it shall in the first instance be made to the High Court..." [Emphasis supplied] He contended that, this application was supposed to be tabled before the High Court for consideration and decision, and if unsuccessful, the applicant could come to this Court as a second bite. He contended further that, where this is opted, the application has to be filed within 14 days and be accompanied with a copy of the decision of the High Court and the chamber summons and the supporting affidavit as required by rule 45 A(l)(a) of the Rules. He contended that this was not done in this case making the application defective. It also rendered the Court without jurisdiction. He cited our decisions in Board of Trustees of Cashewnut Industry Development v. Hermmers Incorporation Ltd, Civil Application 3 No. 220 of 2014 and Alphonce Kahatwo v. Julieth Rodah Alphonce, Civil Application No. 19 of 2013 to support his stance. The applicant being a layman could not respond to the legal issues. He only requested the Court to dismiss the application to allow the hearing of the application on merit. On my part, having read the above decisions and considered the submission of the parties, I have the view that, as this Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter, in terms of rules 45 A (l)(a) and 47 of the Rules, the applicant was supposed to come here on a second bite after unsuccessful attempt before High Court. Filing the application to the Court without a prior attempt to the High Court was erroneous and rendered the Court without jurisdiction. Further, as correctly submitted by Mr. Kaswahili, the application was supposed to be accompanied with copies of the chamber summons, the supporting affidavit and the decision of the High Court pursuant to rule 45 A (3) of the Rules. The applicant did not do so making the application incompetent. This makes grounds one and three full of merit and are upheld. With this finding, I see no base to consider ground two, which exercise may not be of any use, save for academic purposes. The application is struck out with no order for Costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 7th day of November, 2025. The Ruling delivered this 10th day of November, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Revocatus Kenedy Ntanduke, the Applicant and Ms. Tupege Anna Mwambosya, learned Counsel for the Respondents, via virtual Court and Ms. Grolia Masige, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. L. M. MLACHA JUSTICE OF APPEAL R. W. CHAUNGU DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 5