Wilbert Stanslaus vs Amashaiddi & Others (Criminal Application No. 51/01 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1003 (30 September 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 51/01 OF 2023 WILBERT STANSLAUS APPLICANT VERSUS AMASHAIDDI 1 st RESPONDENT MOHAMEDIBRAHIM 2 nd RESPONDENT ABDULIDDI 3 rd RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time within which to file an appeal out of time against the decision of High Court of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam District Registry at Dar es Salaam) (Muruma. J.1 30th September, 2025 MURUKE. J.A.: This is an application for extension of time to file appeal. It is made under Rule 10 of Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Wilbert Stanslaus, the applicant. On the other side, the respondents both have not filed affidavit to opposing the application. dated the 30th day of May, 2023 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 249 of 2021 RULING 1

Present application, emanates from the ruling of the High Court refusing to grant extension of time to file appeal. So, the applicant is before this Court on a second bite. Ruling sought to be challenged was delivered in the absence of both parties on 30th May, 2023. The applicant became aware when informed by the registry officer Mr. Oscar, through Cellphone number +255675048318, on 13thJune, 2023 and collected the copy on the following day 14th June, 2023. According to the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant went to his advocate Mr. Rweyongeza for him to take necessary step. Unfortunately, he was sick thus, on 26th September, 2023 he returned his file to him. The applicant took his file to another advocate Mr. Ambolile Girvas, who upon perusal of the same, advised him to file present application as time within which to file appeal has elapsed. At the hearing of the application before me, the applicant and the three respondents were both present in persons not represented. Upon being called to elaborate on the application, the applicant adopted the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavit to form part of his oral argument. The applicant submitted that, one, he delayed to file appeal because he was not informed of the date of ruling in which it was delivered in his absence, two, that delay was caused by his advocate who was sick, 2

thus returned the file to him on 26th September, 2023; three, that the delay is not attributed by his negligence but rather the situation of his former advocate; four, that he has been in court for long fighting for his rights, it is for interest of justice that he be heard on appeal. In the end applicant prayed for the application to be allowed. On the other side, the first respondent in response he submitted that, the applicant has not adduced sufficient cause on the following reasons: one, there is no proof that he travelled from Morogoro to Dar es Salaam, and two, there is no evidence of sickness of the applicant's former advocate. The second and the third respondent both repeated what the first respondent has submitted though in different style. In rejoinder applicant insisted that he travelled from Morogoro to Dar es Salaam on several occasions. He has all the bus ticket though he did not attach to the affidavit in support of the application, and once required he will make same available to the Court. On the issue of sickness of his advocate, applicant stood by the letter written by his advocate attached to the affidavit in support of the application. Finally, applicant urged the Court to grant orders sought in the Notice of Motion. 3

Having heard both sides, the issue for my determination is whether the applicant has adduced sufficient cause to warrant the Court to exercise its discretion to extend time. Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Rules, for an application of extension of time to be granted, the applicant is required to show good cause for the delay. The said Rule provides that: "The Court upon good cause shown , extend the time limited by these Rules or by any decision of the High Court or tribunal, for the doing o f any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the doing of the act; and any reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as reference to that time as so extended" It is also important to underscore here that, under the above cited provisions, what the applicant is required to do is to show good cause for delay to move the Court to grant the application. This stance has been taken in a number of decisions which include the case of Kalunga & Company Advocate v. National Bank of Commerce Limited, (2006) T.L.R 235. 4

In exercising its discretion, of whether or not to grant extension of time the Court is required to consider the following factors which may not be exhaustive, but at the moment they include, that: (a) Accounting all period of delay; (b) Delay should not be inordinate; (c) The applicant must show diligence and not a party, negligence or sloppiness o f the action that he intends to take; (d) I f the Court sees that, there are other sufficient reasons, such as existence of point o f law o f sufficient importance such as the illegality o f the decision sought to be challenged. It is trite law that, in order for an application for extension of time to succeed, the applicant has to account for each day of the delay, however slight it may be. In the case of Bushiri Hassani v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo (Civil Application No. 3 of 2007) [2008] TZCA 220 the Court stated that: "...Delay o f even a single day, has to be accounted for otherwise there would be no point o f having rules prescribing periods within which certain steps have to be taken. "(Emphasis added) 5

Counting of each day of the delay was also stated in the case of Ndorosi Siatoi v. Veredian John (Civil Application No. 161/02 of 2024) [2024] TZCA 1080: "... it was established that\ for a good cause to be shown, the applicant must account for each day o f the delayed days and express whether he was diligently in conducting the matter. See Bushiri Hassan v. Latifa Mashayo, Civil Application No. 2 o f 2007 and Vodacom Foundation v. Commissioner General (TRA ), Civil Application No. 107/20 of2017(both unreported)." In an application for extension of time accounting of each day of the delay was also cemented in the case of Masato Manyama v. Lushamba Village Council (Civil Application No. 274/08 of 2024) [2025] TZCA 34, "...as explained above, the law is settled. In an application for extension of time each day passed beyond prescribed time has to be acounted for. In the case of Bushiri Hassan v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo, and application No. 3 o f 2007 (unreported) Court stressed that: "Delay, of even a single day, has to be accounted for otherwise there would be no point o f having

rules prescribing periods within which certain steps have to be taken." In my opinion, the applicant has failed to account for days of the delay. The applicant ought to have accounted from 14th September, 2023 to 11th October, 2023 what was being done on each day as expounded by list of this Court decision cited above. In Law of Limitation, each day passed beyond prescribed time counts and it has to be accounted for. Failure to do so, it is hard for the Court to act on a blanket statement as the one averred by the applicant at paragraph 12 of affidavit in support of the application. The applicant has raised issue of traveling from Morogoro to Dar es salaam, however no evidence of either bus ticket or indication of any other means of transport to prove that he was visiting his advocate from time to time as indicated at paragraph 12 of affidavit in support of the application. A mere statement that he travelled to his advocate from time to time, until 26th September, 2023 when he was given back his file cannot be accepted. It was expected that the applicant would have attached bus ticket to prove that he travelled from Morogoro to Dar es Salaam. Argument that he has the ticket, he will produce them once required it is an 7

afterthoughts. Affidavit in support of the application it has to contain all the evidence that the applicant intends to rely on in an application for extension of time. There is no room to produce evidence later after hearing of the application. Two, applicant has said at paragraph 12 that, he was given back his file on 26th September, 2023, but he does not say when he went to see his first advocate. It was expected that, the applicant would have pleaded a specific date that he visited his advocate and handled the copy of ruling which he collected on 14th June, 2023. Three, the applicant has completely failed to account from 14th June, 2023 when collected copy of the ruling to 26th September, 2023 when he was given back his file, as to what was being done on each day for the Court to be able to determine promptness. Four, assuming without believing that, he travelled to his advocate and received his file, on 26th September, 2023 yet there is no counting of days of delay from 26th September, 2023 to the date of filing present application on 11th October, 2023. Five, the applicant main argument is that he be granted extension of time for him to be heard. Right to be heard is so fundamental as clearly 8

articulated under Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977. However, the applicant has not only failed to appeal in time, but also failed to adduce sufficient cause to justify the delay. In the end, the applicant has failed to adduce sufficient cause to justify granting of the extension of time sought to file appeal to the Court. Thus, the application is dismissed. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 30th day of September, 2025. The Ruling delivered this 30th day of September, 2025 in the presence of applicant in person, 1s t, 2n d and 3r d respondents and Nelson I s hereby certified as a true copy of the original. Z. G. MURUKE JUSTICE OF APPEAL. D. R. LYIMO DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 9