Bharya Engineering and Contracting Co. Ltd vs Hamoud Ahmed Nassor (Civil Application No. 342/01 of 2017) [2018] TZCA 962 (7 September 2018)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA- ~_AT·TABORA \\ \~\ CfVI1:,'APPU:eATION 'NO~ 342/01 OF 2017 "'"· .. BHARv,f'Er-iGiNEERiNG.& cc>'N,iRAc-r1NG co. LTo .... - .. ~ .... :~.~ ...... ~: APPi.icA~Nr " .. VERSUS HAMOUD AHMED NASSOR .. ~ .............................. ~····: .................. RESPONPENT (Application for Extension of Time to Lodge a Notice of Appeal from.the Judgment of the High Court at Tabora) (Mgonya, J. ) · Dated the 15 th day of September, 2015 in Civil Case No. 4 of 2013 RULING 24 th A_ugust & 10 th September, 2018 MWAMBEGELE, J.A.: The applicant Bharya Engineering and Contracting Co. Ltd, by a notice of motion, applies for extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court -handed down on .. <,-,..; ,. . "' 15.09.2.015 in ·"Civil Case No. 4 of 2013. The notice of. motion has been taken _out uf.lder'tfj~ provisions of rule 10 of the Ta·nza.hia' _<;;butt of Appeal Rules; 2009 - GN No. 368 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is supported by an affidavit dufy sworn by Sarbjit Singh Bharya, Managing , ........... ' ............. _· ·_ Director of the applicant. The same has-,_been resisted by the respondent · \ . -.: . : ~ .. · .. ~-- in .. , a r, dul3/ affirmed ?ffidavit in f~ply_ .£f l:lc3moud Ahmed Nassar, the respondent. At this stage, I find it apt to narrate a brief factual background to the present application. It is _this: The applicant lost in a suit instituted by the respondent against her in the High Court vide Civil Case No. 4 of 2013. Dissatisfied, she timely lodged a notice of appeal and later Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2015 was instituted in this Court. That appeal; that is, Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2015 was struck out on 17.10.2016 for the reason that the notic€ of appeal thereof contained different names compared to those appearing in t~e judgment. .Undeterred, the applicant :filed in the High. Court Miscellaneous- Civil Case Application No. 20 .. of 2016 seeking enlargement of time within which to file a fresh notice of appeal against Civil Case No. 4 of 2013. The High Court (Mallaba, J.) dismissed the app{ication. on acco_LJnt th 9 t no sufficient reasons .W:ere sh,0w,,n JQ Y,Y,?r-rant .... ,,. _ _....~. ---· ~~-,.i;:;.,~.~.n-. .. -..:;~~~",.... .. ..,..,... __ ,. .. ~_. ... ,.~,w.,. .. ..._.,.~~1-• .. i,~~- · .... . ..... .. the court exercise-'fts· discretion to grant the extension' soughh:; • .. ...... ·~ •. .•.. ·.z,i ,···•"'·- Still determined, ··the a·riplicant lodged in the Court Civil Application No. 10/tl· of 2017 to e~~rcise·his- right of a second bite of the .-cherry. 2 However, _that application was struck uut by a ruling•: of the Court · pronou11c~/,d <Jn.1.9.07.2017 on a successful prel[min~ry}Sbjection raised by the respondent: · Still undaunted, the applicant lodged·_ the pre$ent application on ff3:08~2U18 to, once again, try another bite at the cherry. When the application was called on for hearing on 24.08.2018 the applicant appeared through Mr. Michael. Mwambeta, learned counsel. Mr . . Mugaya Kaitila Mtaki and Ms. Monica Mlaho, both learned counsel, joined forces to represent the respondent. Both parties - had earlier filed written submissions and reply written submissions, as the case - may be, for and against the application which they sought to adopt at the hearing. Mr. Mwambeta for· the applicant, having adopted the notice of motion, the affk:lavit supporting it as well as the written submissions earlier filed in its support as part of the oral submissions for the applicant, submitted that when Civil Case No. 4 of 2013 was decided against the applicant, she time!y\!0G!goo.:a::.-,otice"·'9f appeal and later Ci~ii~~p.pe.aLJ~o ... ' ~.~ ,:,. •• :· ~ _.,. • • ... -1'· ,.,..~-·-· ~- .rJ . 148 of 2015 was lodged in the Court of Appeal but was struck out -On c ,., :•~ I •· • ........ , .·. -.i'; •.• _, · 17.10.2016 as a result of a ·successful preliminary objection raised by the · - · respondent .to tt,e~"·effect that the relevant · netice . ..of • appeal ,,.,c--ontafned 3 different names compared to _ those appearing in the <Qjudgment and - its'. . ~ . . - . .. application in the High Ceurt ano a second bite in this Court, to file-a fresn , .... ~.... . •····. - ... ., . . . . . ~ notice of appeal but1.tiose; efforts went unrewarded. The learned counsel went on to submit that from ·the date of striking out the application _on a second bite by the Court on 19.07.2017, the applicant has not shown any inaction or inordinate delay. He was therefore entitled to an enlargement of time as was the case in Benedict Mumello v. Bank of Tanzania [2006] 1,EA 227, he submitted. The learned counsel thus submitted that the applicant has shown good cause for the Court to be pleased to grant the ex1:ension sought. In addition to the for-egoing, th~ learned counsel submitted that there were poinst of law of public importance for consideration by the Court. He stated that the points of law involved were; one, whether the plaintiff and __ ... , . .defendaotwere parties to anycontract.,within.tbe meaning of the-law o.f. _ .,,.. -- , . ..,. '"~"---:-.z...:.r~~\;' •:2"'--,,• .,. "* ....... _....... ,. ,...,.. • n---,a£>· .. ~r~-....-:;r,:; ;,:, <d,..~~· " . ,_,_,., ~ .. ~-. '" .,..... i.loi~-::,,.,.:;.~-.:r .. ~->~.'.i:~.'.~ "·-c:ontract Act, and two, whether there was any -~document to that -eff,ect. :·" _ .~ for-- this- point as well, Mr. Mwambeta prayed :-that the extension sought . .. .., . should be granted. .. .-· .. , -- . ., .... •'•{·: . 4 ... _ ... , · .. : Responding, the -respondent, ·also·· having adopted the •affidavit m _.. , ·;, ' force that the applicant·has not-brought to the fore good cause to ·warrant ·· ~ · the Court exerdse· its cfis.cretion"ta·-grant the extension sought_"·-.-·Ail .. the····· applicant has exhibited, he submitted; is negligence which does not amount to good cause under rule 10 of the Rules. He cited William Shija and another v. Fortunatus Masha [1997] TLR 213, · Maneno Mengi Limited and 3 others· v. _. Said Nyam_achumbe & the Registrar of Companies [2004] TLR 319 and Mwananchi Engineering and Contracting Corporation v. Manna Investment (Pty) Limited & another, Civi1 Application No. 5 of 2006 to buttress the proposition that ~ . . ' _mistake or negligence of a counsel cannot amount to good cause under rule 10-of the Rules. · The learned counsel for the respondent also cited Maulid Hussein v ....... Ah,dal!~J1::.JJ.101a,. Civil App1ication No •.... .20_ of ::~~Q~8:_{1.JJ1reported) - to _.,. ••• -i- .. .i.o-.._...~ ... •Oltfl'.l;ftt.l,it.• ...... -~.. "•" • ~- ,,JII~• ,:"l'.,\'\<t ~~~ ..... ~-"' ... ,-.,.~ .... bu~ress t-ne· ·point that inordinate daay·:· causecF by negligenc-e ·is · inexcusable ... •~·He'•-alse ·.cited Tanzania Bureau ·of-Standards ;V ■ - Anitha Kaveva .Maro,· Civil Application No. 60/18 of 2017 (unr€ported) -in which •"'-ti'\,.••,o.:--.•• "fj!~•• ' •• • • . •• " • - "'\''. ~w.t .. • ... ,...,,, ,,:<; ..... ~•• • •• ~ •• .••• • •••~ I •-'•1•: . . Hct~san Bushiri v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application .,No. 3 of 2007 ·-,.,;.":_;-- .,_;;~-- .... J--- ,.; .. ~ 14-· .'{ .. · .. · :,- 5 (unreported}. vyas cited+for the proposition that delay of .even a ,single day . ~-. , • m·ust .. be,.._.pcc,ounted for. ·The learned .-couns~rthv.s _ _...submitted that t11e - ~1.. (·• • . --· .•. ·-~r-'-•· ~,._ . . application be dismissed with costs:. ·. ~;f . . . . Rejoining, Mr. Mwambeta stated that the applicant has never f?een negligent. If anything, he argued, the applicant has been diligently prosecuting the case after the first notice of appeal was filed timeously and.· after Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2015 was struck out by the Court .. He thus reiterated the prayer to have the present application allowed. I have dispassionately read and considered the applicant's written submissions as well as the authorities cited therein. The Court is asked to . exercise :its discretionary power to extend time within which to file a notice of appeal. against Civil Case No. 4 of 2013. The power to enlarge time within to perform a certain act is. bestowed upon the Court by the provisions of rute 10 of the Rules under which the present application has "' , ... . ~ "The ·Court ma½ , .upon good cause shown, extend the time limited-by these Rules or by any :•- . decision of the High Court or tribunal, for the 6 ,-:_doing of any_ act •authorized or required by. these -- ;_ , - . . ····•·· Rules,. w._t,ether before of after the expiratiorr 'of,;,;,_. :-\>-·· . -:.,":".:~'· r,•. . . . . • . --~-~..... . -,.~,. . . .::···:,.~ ... ,- ... ~..-- . .,..,_ :., .-~..-.-~ .that. time and whether before or .after the doing· of the act; and any reference in.ihese· Rules-to_ any such time shall be construed as a reference to that time as so extended. "[Emphasis added]. As shown in the bold expression in the section above, the Court will. only exercise its discretion in . favour ·of an applicant only upon showing good cause for the delay. What amounts to good cause cannot be· laid by any hard and fast rules but is dependent upon the facts obtaining in each particular case.· As· we stated in Vodacom --Foundation v. Commissioner General_ (J"RA), Civil Application No. _ 107 /20 of 2017 (unreported); the case relied upon by the respondent, each case will be decided on its own merits taking into consideration the questions, inter t . t .,. _____ .. ,.,.,,.,.-cl.lia, whether the applic.atio.n Jor.,.;;e.&~osion of time has been _,brougbt.,,,.., .... ,.,._ .. :,-----·· :~· -- ___ , ~ ,,,,... -.,-...:.P"-l'w':.t!,: ...... ~.....--=-•·-~·'1,,•" "":;, -~-----~ • ........ t-"1.~ ...... -~,""!(:~ ... ,;; ~~ ... - -.:,.., • _ promptly, whether every _day of delay has· been explained away as . .-well as-·":-· - r;• • ',; . - •· .• .,. • • .. .... ... ·- •• _,, • ,. . • • ... :" ~--·_"' --~:- .whether there was _diligence on _th~, part •Of the applicant - see also·~··_ ... -·::_~~ ··--_., . ·Regional Manage_r, ~: TANROADS Kagera v. _ Ruaha ~on~ete . •. . ... - . ~ • .,,o,.. •fj~\- • ;' ' • -~~ ·,. • ...... 1,~ ~-- ~.J,'l'r. ·' Company ·Limited, Civil Application No. 96 of 2007, Tanga Cement _j_ ~-:rJ- ~ ~- ~~~-- . ✓• -~-f- .. I 7 Company Limited v .. _.Jurnanne D. Massanga and another, :_civil .- Application No-~-6 of.2001, :: :Oar:,J~sSalaam City Council v .. JayantH~L-P .. ~ . . _.. ·- : •. ,.,·,.. ,°,,.~ - • • ~ , ':·;;:;;. ... - .;:--.·;:-.--:-,.. ..--";1 ••. .::.-/ Rajani, Civil ,,Application No .. 27 of 1987 and Yusufu Same and ·another - v. Hadija Yusufu, ;tivil Appeal No. 1 of 2002-·(all unreported decisions of this Court). In the case at hand, the applicant has stated that she has been diligently prosecuting her case ever since Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2015 was .. struck out on 17.10.2016. On the other hand, the respondent is of the view that nothing but negligence comes out clearly in the applicant's reasons for the deiay to act timely. Respectfuiiy, having subjected to serious. scrutiny the affidavit supporting the notice of motion as well as the submissions of the applicant, I have_ not been able to see anywhere showing negligence on the part of the applicant. What is apparent is the applicant's diligence to prosecute her case. When Civil Appeal No. 148 of . g,q}?"":Y,t, 9 ,~ .. ?truck out :on 17.10.20_!{:i..,_ fh~~ ~~,R-~~if~Dt.started the prorvess - ,..,,. ... .::. -., .. ..... ,.,r:r·~-- _ .-,..,..... "' ............ ,~~ · .,. ~-- .---,,1,!~.,,.~~ ....... r:-.~,~r.--.- ---_,_... ,,. ,....,...., __ .,.. " -~·- ~ .... ~ .. -...,~- .., __ ' .. ' ... afresh by lodging in the High Court ~-is~ellane6tJs CivH Ca~ Application No. 2.oiof 2-.01i .. seeking enlargement of time- w~t-hin whk:h to:)=ile a fresh notice of appeal." . That-application -was not successful;-{ it was dismissed. on _. ~•-·_1•·, __ ,,.... :r-:•-- ., ' ... t '·-~\~ ... ~-.,,_ •• ·":\~.. _, • ,. --: ,, .... ~--~; .-~--" ·•'"f"l' 06.12.2016 for failure to show-good cause for the delay. Consequent upon · -•~:i- ~ ~t •. ~-:~- k .. ~-- -~.-~-- ~• 8 , · that, the .appHGant lodged· in. the, Court Civil Application No. 70/11 of 2017 , - . ~ ~: .. as. a;,second bite but as bad luck would:·_.hav,e it, that application was also· -~ . . .. -struck out by the Court on 19.07.-2017 following a succ-essful preliminary - objection raised by ·1net1~11dent. Undeterred, the ap~plkant lodged the . present application on 03.08.2018 in another bid for the second bite at the cherry. The fact that Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2015 in this Court was struck out after a successful preliminary objection, and the fact that Miscellaneous Civil Case Application No. 20 of 2016 for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was refused for failure to bring good cause for the delay and the further fact that Civil Application No. 70/11 of 2017 was struck out by the Court on a sua:essfui preHminary objection do not,_ in my view, prov1de sufficient proof that the applicant was neg'iigent. To agree with the respondent on this accusation over the applicant will be tantamount to lay down a very broad principle to the detriment of the applicant and justice. · As t~e _striking-_ out of Civil Appeal No. 14~• of 20::15, on :17.lQ.2016 annihi1ated the"'.not:ice of.a.ppeal - see: National Microfioanee .Bank PLC -_ -v. _Oddo Odilo Mbunda; Civil Appeal No 91 of 2016 . and Dhow. ':'. ,;,.. ~...... - ·, ·,. ·Mercantile (EA) Ltd & 2 Others v. Registrar of Companies 4 .. i~- ~~- 9 .. •· ·Others,-Civil Appeal - No. 56 of. 2005 (both unreported)/the applicant had ., ' ' _ ~-:to staft .the_ p.r::ocess ·of appeaf ·afresh·.by ·applyi:ng._for exte~sion of time to . . ·,.·. .... . ·.:- ... . . . · .. _,._ ... · -file a fresh. notice of appeal. Thus the period of delay between 17)0.2016 -- . .. . . . , .. when °Civil .Appeal No.· 14s· of 2015 was struck out and 19.07.2017 when the Court struck out Civil Application No. 70/11 of 2017 prior to the lodgment of the present applic_ation is explicable and excusable. This is what is termed as a technical delay within the meaning of a plethora of authorities of the Court - see: Fortunatus Masha v. William Shija and Another [1997] TLR 154 · and Salvand K. · A. Rwegasira - v. China Henao International Group Co._ Ltd., CivU Reference No. 18 of 2006, Zahara Kitindi &. Another v. Juma Swaiehe & 9 others; Civii . Application No. 4/05 of 2017,- Yara Tanzania Limited v. DB Shapriya and Co. -Limited, Civil Application No. 498/16 of 2016, Vodaoom Foundation (supra) and Samwel Kobelo Muhulo v. National Housing Corporation,· Civil 'Application No. 302/17 of .201ir7 (aH ' ••., .... ,.., • ~- .. .... .. : .... ~::') ,;~J- ... , "~•'-'=-•-·· .. ,I\... . .. u_nr,eported), · to mention but a f.ew. In Rwegasira_ {supra), for instance, . . . ~. . ·,-:::"~ .. _. .··_ . . . r.e "•?-":,- , .•..•••.• _ single Justice of the Court in Fortunatus Masha (supra), the _holding, I . . . :· . . ~- . .,. . - : . . . think,_ merits r€Citation her~: 10 '~ , distinction . had. to · be drawn. between · cases . ·· · · · -·:: '"involving .. real CJr actual delays and those"'such as: __ · __ . . .. ~ /.·;· . the present one which clearly only involved .. . iechniCllhdelays in the -~nse. that. the. original. appeal was lodgedin time but had been found to be incompetent for one or another reason and a fresh appeal had to be instituted In the present case the applicant · had acted immediately after the pronouncement of the ruling of the Court striking out the first appeal. In . these drcumstances an extension of time ought to be granted" As an extension to the following, I find it irresistible to quote what the Court stated at p; 155 in the case - Fortunatus Masha {supra) - in .-• ·-·a•··; ___ .,.aHowing an extension, the Court.obse~~d:,, ..... . ,.;;, •.. . •. •• ,. , '• .,. ~ ·• -::" '"'":,,~.-~ -J~'t'••~ ~-~ ' ':.. a distinction should be made between rP '-· cases involving real or actual delays and those,, li.i<e the present one which · only 11 • • involve vi,hat can be called technical delays . · · in ·th~sense 1hat· the. origiaal appeal was· lodge.rJ in time -but~ the present' situation arose. only " - - because the original appeal for one reason or another has been found to be incompetent and a fresh appeal has to be instituted. In the circumstance~ the negligence if any really refers to the filing of an incompetent appeal not the delay in filing it. The filing of an incompetent appeal having . /JP...,en duly penalized by striking it.out, t:he same cannot be used yet again to determine the timeousiless of applying for filing the fresh appeal. In fact in the present case, the applicant acted immediately after the pronouncement of the ' • ,,, ,... _, •' •. ·, ...... • •··"' 1 •r' .. '"° --::-:~ •. 11, •• :ta---<1«··, •·· •• ,. .~: • · ,. _ 1 ruling of this Court striking out the first appeal. " -- ,r':'l .,_ •. - ,1· •. · .. .. . [Emp~asis supplied]. :·_ ' · · I subscribe to the view taken by the Court in the ,.above cases. The ·· ~ ~ ~••• -• • 0, ~-.•, • -~ \, ¥h" •• •• .... •f•f.>• ► applicant i~ the present application, having been 9uly penalized by striking · . .:;,;- .. -- . ··,..:.~~-- . ·: . ~-_.f;;- {. -~.tf ~ 12 · out Civil Appeal No~ 148 .:of 2015-.and dismissing Miscellaneous Civil.. Case . •·, ,' . : AppHcatiGn No. 20 of 201fr as~·well as·striking out Civil Application No:·148 of 2015, the same cannot be used yet again to· determine the timeousness of applying ·for filing•e~'. fresh notice of appeal in a· bid ·to file a fresh appeal. That was a technical delay on the part of the applicant which constitutes good cause under rule 10 of the Rules. That is to say, I take it that the applicant has explained to my satisfaction the period of delay between 17.10.2016 when Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2015 was struck out and 19.07.2017 when the Court struck out Civil Application No. 70/11 · of 2017 prior to the lodgment of the pr.esent application. Having said the- above, I woufd have granted the appHcation and rested in peace if it were not for the applicant's failure to explain away the delay that followed thereafter. No scintilla of explanation has been brought to the fore in respect of· the delay regarding the period between 19.07.20.17 when .the .. {:ourt struck out Civil Appliq~gon No_~_ 79(!.! .. ~( ~017 ,,,, .:r~••"i-'·-·,•,.4-••,t~·'l.t'•·;t•.,<t · ...,._, .. ·•~~-:••i,.~--~l-• -,t:-c.~":··•··r.,,~- '': and:the lodginent~of the present application on 03.08.2017/. This period of about fifteen,.days has 'nof been accounted for. i:.hefe- is :not a'ri 1oht or explanation in the notice. of motion, in the. affidavit supporting it; in the .. ,: . , . ,.,_. . , . ... . ~ . .. written submissions filed in· support of the application; not even in the oral -~,- ~~-- _; ~- i1 - ·: ~.:~- - .•, 13 arguments-before me. As:rightly submitted by the learned ,counsel for the ~ ~ .. respondent, -in .app!icc3.tions of· this nature,. each .and -evety <Jciy-_(?f_ ,deiay must be accounted - for. -In Hassan Bushiri v. latifa Lukio Mashayo,· Civil Application No.''3 df"2007 {unreported), the Court had a·n occasion to underline the dire need for litigants who seek to extend time in taking actions within which certain steps could be taken, to account for each and every day of delay in the following terms: 11 Delay, of even a single day, has to be accounted for otherwise there would be no point of having rules prescribing periods within which certain steps have to be taken'~ In the case at hand, as already alluded to above, the applicant has failed to explain away the delay of about fifteen days from 19.07.2017 when the Court struck out Civil Application No. 70/11 of 2017 to the _,.,.- - ~ ~:n, .. ,.,. .,:..., .. r-• . • , ... " ., •,•··· .. i-:". • -·· -",...-:<1.o;:,, ."<" _ - the applicant to the effect that there are points of law of public importance ·. ,. - ·. ,. . ~ - . ' . .. . calling for determination . of the ··court, will not -change 'the verdict. --The'"'· 14 points ·of law referred to by the~learned ,counsel for the applicant are ,not , ones of public importance .... Upon a plethora of authorities of the .Court,,Jt is. only a point of law which is ·of sufficient significance as to warrant the , -attention of this Court that will sail through as good cause under rule 10 of the rules. I am reinforced in this stance by the case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd. -v. Board of Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania, Civil Application No. 2 of .2010 (unreported). In that case it was articulated: ''In VALAMBHIA~ case (supra) this Court held that a point of law of importance such as the . legality of the decision sought to be challenged could constitute a sufficient reason for extension of time. But in that case/ the errors of the la~ were clear on the face of the record." ·,--·,:.·And the-Gourt 0 went on: '" . l•c ' ,- ,!~inC§. ~ve_ry,_party intending to appea/,seeks Jo .. , a..,, ·' ~ I'.,.. ,. . . . - [, ... .,. .. . challenge a decision either on points of law or faCC it cannot in my view/ be., said that in 15 . . .. · - VALAMBIA s case, the Court meant to draw a _ gt;neral rule that --- every;;.,. appllcarit who · · demonstrate that· his intended appeal · raises points of law should as of right, be granted extension of time if he applies for one. The court there emphasized that such point of law, must be ~hat 'of sufficient importance' and I would add that it must also be apparent on the face of the recor~ such as the question of jurisdiction; not one that v1ould be discovered by a fang drawn argument or process. " [Emphasis suppHed]. [See also: MZA RTC Trading Company Limited v. Export Trading Company Limited, Civil Application No. 12 of 2015 (unreported)]. : ... .. . ·---··• .. • .,,,. .. • ' ~-"' <'. ' • ,,.,..._,, • .• . • •.. ~ ..... _ lf'Jt,... · ,;,· 11 ' <. ., 11f"'''' C.: •·lliJ"tl't.~-- e,,,-. _,._ . ,- • ,. ...... ~ _,,.. t .,-r.· .. , 11-·it-.,,,·~- ........... ~ .. .. -. - . - The ·above said, the - points- whether the plainfiff and defendant wef-e- parties to any contract-within 'l:he' rtiea'ning of the Law of Contract Act a'rtef _whether. there was any ·document to that effect are not points of 1aw of· publ._i~ interest. Thus, it_is appar,ent that there is no point of tflw of public· •·-...:.-1'.il'I- ·-...:..-1,· -~:-,.,- ~-<~r 16 • importance that would need the attention of the Court Y:JOrth granting,an ,. ·extension of ti.me. - . . - .,,~ .. ,~ .... ,. • . •.,;!: . • ~Ji,C,•,.. Cl?-· ·In theupsbot, it- is- my well-considered view that the a·pplicant has ,;. . it :,·· not· shown good cause for the delay to· warrant the Court exercise its discretion to grant the extension sought. Consequently, I find this ·_ application wanting in merit and dismiss it with costs. Order accordingly. DATED at TABORA this ih day of September, 2018. J. C. M. MWAMBEGELE JUSTICE OF A-PPEA1. I certify that this is a true copy of the original. '1u. H. S. Mushi ·:·. :., :.~: 1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR "·:_, COURT OF APPEAL {T ; •. ,~·: . ,t,f .•• ' ~:,\'I!· ,fl~ ,- . • ,:.~• "/'" . :"·-:- 17 ... , .. -~ '' ,,,~. , , • - · ·: • ,·r·· ~ · .._ , .- -: -~ , 1" .,. · "'·~••"' • • ' .... ..,< • ·'!'''.S: i·:· ·., <' .• ,. ,.._~ . "~ .• • -?~ ... ._:-.. .- ~ .. , ··- \