Ibrahim Tindwa vs Revocatus Osward & Another (Civil Application No. 556/17 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1007 (25 September 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 556/17 OF 2023 IBRAHIM TINDW A .................. . .............................................. APPLICANT VERSUS REVOCATUS OSWARD........................... . .......................... 1 st RESPONDENT DICKSON OSWARD .............................................. . ..... ■ 2 nd RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time lodge an Application for Revision against the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Tanzania, Land Division at Dar es Salaam) fMakani, J.) Dated the 13th day of March,2023 in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 721 of 2022 RULING 29th August & 25th September, 2025. WAMBALI, J.A.: On 13th March, 2023, the High Court of Tanzania, Land Division sitting at Dar es Salaam delivered a Ruling in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 721 of 2022. It is noteworthy that in the respective application, the applicant had sought extension of time to file an application for Revision against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) for Kinondoni which had entered an exparte judgment against the applicant. Basically, in its decision, the High Court found that the applicant's application was devoid of merit, and consequently, it dismissed it with costs to the respondents.

The decision of the High Court prompted the applicant to lodge the instant application premised on the provision of rule 45A (a) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) seeking extension of time to lodge an application for revision to contest it. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant. It is apparent in the affidavit that the applicant contends in paragraphs 6 and 8 that the reason for applying for extension of time are; one that the High Court Judge disregarded the reasons adduced in the affidavit in support of the application and two, that the issue of illegality of the judgment of the DLHT was not considered at all. The applicant also lodged written submissions in support of the application and urged the Court to find in his favour. The application is contested by the respondents through the affidavit in reply lodged in Court on 13th June, 2025. It is noteworthy that the application was initially called on for hearing on 25th August, 2025 through video conference linked to Dar es Salaam Sub Registry from Dodoma Main Registry. However, on that date, the hearing was adjourned to 29th August, 2025 because of miscommunication between the Court and the counsel for the applicant from Trasis Attorneys based in Dar es Salaam. I thus ordered re-service of the notice of hearing to the applicant's

counsel because it was only Mr. Adronicus Byamungu, learned advocate for the respondents who had entered appearance virtually. Following the order M/S Trasis Attorney were duly served physically on 28th August, 2025 at their office located at Kelvin House 2n d Floor, Samora Avenue Dar es Salaam as reflected by the recipient's signature and the firm's stamp. The service is further supported by the affidavit of the process server, one Mambulu Iddi dated 28th August, 2021. More importantly, the Deputy Registrar of the Court provided the applicant's counsel a link to join the video conference on 29th August, 2025 for the hearing of the application. Nonetheless, the applicant's counsel did not join the video conference for hearing of the application. In the circumstance, Mr. Adronicus Byamungu, learned advocate for the respondents who joined the hearing virtually urged me to proceed with the hearing despite the absence of the applicant or his counsel because, in terms of rule 106 (12) (a) of the Rules, the applicant had lodged written submissions in support of the application. I accordingly granted the prayer and proceeded with the hearing of the application. For his part, Mr. Byamungu initially opposed the application based on the preliminary point of law that the application is improperly before the Court. Moreover, he submitted on the merit or otherwise of the application.

Mr. Byamungu submitted that the provisions of rule 45A (a) of the Rules under which the application is premised is cites out of context. He stated that the respective provision deals with the situation in which the applicant must have initially applied to the High Court for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal, leave to appeal or a certificate on points of law and that such an application must have been refused. He argued that according to the record of the application, there is no indication that the applicant did apply for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal to the Court against the decision of the High Court. Therefore, he submitted, in the absence of such an application which is refused, the applicant cannot be entitled to approach the Court under the cited provisions of rule 45A (a) of the Rules. The learned advocate submitted that, according to the record of the application, the High Court dismissed an application which the applicant had lodged seeking extension of time to lodge an application for revision against an exparte judgement of the DLHT for Kinondoni in Land Application No. 255 od 2019. In the circumstances, Mr. Byamungu urged me to strike out the application with costs for being improperly before the Court and therefore

incompetent because it does not fall under the provision of rule 45A (a) of the Rules. I entirely agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the instant application does not follow into the provisions of rule 45A (a) of the Rules under which the applicant purports to seek refuge to contest the decision of the High Court in Land Application No. 722 of 2022 which concerned an application for extension of time to apply for revision of the decision of the DLHT which was dismissed as intimated above. For clarity, rules 45A (a) of the Rules provides: "Where an application for extension o f time to: (a) Lodge a notice o f appeal (b) N/A 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 an application shall be made on the same grounds relied upon before the High Court." It is apparent that to invoke the provisions of rules 45A (a) of the Rules, the applicant should have firstly applied for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court in Land Application No. 722 of 2022. Besides, such an application must have been refused by the High Court.

Gauging from the applicant's application, this is not the case. It is apparent that in its decision in Land Application No. 722 of 2022, the High Court dismissed the applicant's prayer for extension of time to lodge an application for revision against an exparte decision of the DLHT for Kinondoni in Land application No. 255 of 2019. More importantly, the applicant's notice of motion and supporting affidavit do not show that at the High Court, he had an intention or lodged an application for extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal against the decision dated 13th March, 2023 in Land Application No. 722 of 2022 which was refused to prompt the instant application before the Court. In the event, the application is totally misplaced and therefore incompetent. Consequently, I strike out the application with costs. DATED at DODOMA this 23r d day of September, 2025. F . L. K. WAMBALI JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Ruling delivered this 25th day of September, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Andronicus Byamungu, learned counsel for the Respondents, in the absence of the Applicant via virtual Court and Regina Komba, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. ^ J u R. W. CHAUNGU I DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 6