Marygrace Suleiman & Others vs Vicent Maseneje (Civil Application No. 840/03/2023) [2025] TZCA 965 (12 September 2025)

N THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION N0.840/03/2023 MARYGRACE SULEIMAN . ............. .........................................1 st APPLICANT RWEHUMBIZA SULEIMAN ..................... . ..............................2 nd APPLICANT JAPHARI TIBA MOHAMED . .......... . ...................... . .......... . 3 rd APPLICANT HADIJA SULEIMAN...............................................................4 th APPLICANT HANIFA SULEIMAN ............................. - ................. . ......... 5™ APPLICANT SHUBIRA SULEIMAN ........................................................... 6™ APPLICANT VERSUS VICENT MASENEJE................................................................RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal and leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma) fMansoor. J .~ ) dated the 16th day of June, 2017 in Land Appeal No. 57 of 2016 RULING 27th August & 12th September, 2025 RUMANYIKA. J.A.: On the 27th October, 2020, the applicants herein lost in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 47 of 2021 before the High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma. They sought extension of time to do two acts; one, to lodge notice of appeal and two, to file an application for leave to appeal against the decision in Land Appeal No. 57 of 2016. In that appeal, the High Court had upheld the judgement of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Dodoma ("the DLHT") in Land Application No. 88 of 2011. i

Before it, the respondent was declared the lawful owner of the disputed property on Plot No. 9 Block E, Kikuyu East, Dodoma. Being aggrieved and desirous to appeal, the applicants sought an extension of time to assail the DLHT decision vainly for want of sufficient cause. They are now before me, by way of second bite for extension of time to do the said acts. The application has been predicated on rules 10 and 48(1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 ("the Rules"). It is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Cheapson Luponelo Kidumage, learned advocate for the applicants. From the corresponding notice of motion and the sequence of events narrated in the founding affidavit, the applicants have fronted two grounds; one, technical delay and two, illegality of the impugned decision as sufficient grounds for the grant of extension of time. The respondent did not file an affidavit in reply. At the scheduled hearing of the application, Messrs. Cheapson Kidumage and Rabin Mafuru, learned counsel appeared for the applicants and the respondent respectively. Noteworthy, from the very outset and on reflection, Mr. Kidumage dropped the first ground of the application down the lane. Upon taking the floor, Mr. Kidumage began by adopting the supporting affidavit. He contended that, the execution of the impugned decree was

already done but it did not bar the appeal process. On the sole ground of application, he asserted that, once illegality of the decision sought to be reversed gets established, it constitutes sufficient ground for the grant of extension of time. The learned counsel also argued that, the High Court Judge invoked the provisions of section 59 of the Law of Marriage Act Cap. 29 ("the LMA") improperly and out of context to hold that the disputed property is not matrimonial, which constituted an illegality. He relied on the Court's decision in Kalunga & Company Advocates v. NBC Ltd. [2006] T.L.R. 235 to fortify his proposition. Being prompted by the Court, Mr. Kidumage quickly asserted that there had been no any matrimonial proceedings to establish the status of the disputed property. In reply, Mr. Mafuru contended that, the application is misconceived therefore liable to be dismissed. He argued that the supporting affidavit did not suggest any alleged misinterpretation of section 59 of the LMA as causing illegality of the resultant decision for the grant of extension of time. To reinforce his point, Mr. Mafuru took me through the standards required as reiterated by the Court in Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd. v. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Association of Tanzania, Civil Application IM o. 2 of 2010 (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010 [2011] TZCA 4 (3 October 2011; TanzLII) that, an alleged illegality has to be easily spotted without calling for long drawn 3

arguments and evidence to prove its existence. He also argued that, the present application did not meet the required threshold. He, on that account, therefore, urged the me to dismiss the application with costs. Upon hearing the learned counsel's arguments, the issue for determination is fairly straight forward. It is whether a sufficient cause for extension of time has been shown as envisaged under Rule 10 of the Rules. It is a common ground that the Court has tested the rule stated above repeatedly such as in TANESCO v. Mufungo Leonard Majura & Others (Civil Application No. 94 of 2016) [2017] TZCA 239 (5 June 2017; TanzLII). Upon Mr. Kidumage dropping the ground on the technical delay as alluded to before, I now move to the remaining ground of illegality of the impugned decision. It is in respect of the alleged misapplication of section 59 of the LMA by the High Court Judge allegedly arriving at the wrong conclusion. In fact, the applicants' complaint sounds more of a dissatisfaction with the said decision than the same constituting a sufficient cause for the grant of extension of time. It is so because, if anything, it needs one to adduce evidence and thus long drawn arguments to prove that the law applicable to the case and its circumstances was not section 59 of the LMA. For instance, it is worth

noting in this application as agreed by the parties that there had been no matrimonial proceedings before any competent court establishing that the disputed property was self-acquired by one Vicent Maseneje, the 1s t applicant's husband or otherwise. As such, this application has not met the requisite conditions which the Court has restated, times without number such as in Ngao Godwin Losero v. Julius Mwarabu (Civil Application No. 10 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 302 (18 October 2016; TanzLII) and in Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd. (supra). To make myself clear, in the latter application it was held that, an alleged illegality must not only be such a point of sufficient importance determinable on appeal / but also apparent on the face of the record, such as not the one that would be discovered by a long-drawn argument or process. I wish to add that, any perincuriam decision or, as the case may be, the one based on a wrong or dead law may not necessarily constitute an illegality. Therefore, it is my fortified view that the applicants' complaint would only be relevant as a ground of appeal or arguable point if leave to appeal to this Court was granted. Nonetheless, it is worth noting in this case that in the light of the amendment of section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141, brought under sections 10 and 47 of the Legal Sector Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 11 of 2023) leave is no longer a legal requirement. 5

Flowing from what I have endeavored to observe as above, I am settled in my mind that there is no illegality worth it demonstrated to constitute sufficient cause warranting exercise of my discretion to extend the time. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed with costs for want of merits. DATED at DODOMA this 10th September, 2025 S. M. RUMANYIKA 1USTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered this 12th day of September, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Cheapson Kidumage, learned counsel for the applicants also holding brief for Mr. Rabin Mafuru, learned counsel for the respondent through Virtual Court and Mr. Elias Nkwabi, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. 6