Issa N. S. Marombe vs Abderheman Mbwana (Civil Application No. 225/17 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 836 (7 August 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: KOROSSO, J.A., MAKUNGU. J.A., And RUMANYIKA 3.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 225/17 OF 2023 ISSA N. S. MAROMBE ................................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS ABDERHEMAN MBWANA ............................................................RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time to lodge supplementary record of appeal arising from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (LjlcUO Dated the 10th day of September, 2011 in Land Appeal No. 16 of 2010 RULING OF THE COURT 05th & 7th August, 2025 KOROSSO, 3A.: Issa N. S. Marombe, the applicant instituted a suit in the Lindi District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) against the respondent claiming ownership of a piece of land on Plot No. 52 Block T, Lindi Township (the suit land). After a full trial, the DLHT dismissed the suit with costs. Dissatisfied, the applicant preferred an appeal in the High Court sitting at Mtwara, in Land Appeal No. 16 of 2010 which was unsuccessful. i

After a multitude of applications which were determined, on 26/3/2018, the applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2018 to challenge the decision of the High Court. The appeal hearing was faced with two preliminary objection points challenging the competence of the appeal: One, of having incomplete record and thus offending rule 96(2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). Two, absence of appropriate leave to appeal under section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216. In its determination, the Court granted leave to the applicant to lodge supplementary record of appeal that includes the missing documents, within 30 days of the meted order. The applicant failed to comply with the said order within the time specified. The applicant is now before the Court seeking extension of time and varying of the order of the Court of 22/11/2019, to file the supplementary record of appeal. The instant application was first placed before a single Justice of this Court (Maige, JA), who refrained from hearing and determining it since the order sought to be varied originated from a panel of members of the Court. Hence, it is before us for determination. The instant application is instituted under rules 2, 4(1) and (2) (a, b and c) and 64(2) of the Rules and seeks to move the Court for an order to 2

extend time to file supplementary record of appeal as previously ordered by the Court. It is supported by an affidavit deponed by the applicant himself. The reasons for the application include:

1. That the record o f appeal upon being found wanting in respect o f the Ruling in Civil Application No. 128 o f 2012 which the applicant did not possess, an order was granted to file supplementary record that will include it, within 30 days.
2. The search o f the document was unsuccessful for a time and until when it was retrieved on 29/7/2021 , when the 30 days given had elapsed.
3. The applicant has processed other applications including Civil Application No. 356/17 o f2021 to seek extension o f time or varying of the order o f the Court which failed on technicalities. On the part of the respondent, he did not resist the application since there was no affidavit in reply, filed. Mr. Amin Mohamed Mshana, learned advocate entered appearance for the applicant, on the day the application was scheduled for hearing. The respondent appeared in person by way of a video conference from Lindi. Mr. Mshana implored the Court to grant the prayers sought by the applicant as failure to file the supplementary record of appeal within the thirty days 3

ordered by the Court could not be executed upon failure to gather all the missing documents in time. He contended that the missing copy of the ruling expected to be included in the supplementary record to be filed was received on 29/7/2021 which was beyond the granted days to file it. He thus urged the Court to find that the applicant's delay in filing the supplementary record on time was not occasioned by negligence or failure to exercise diligence. He informed us that this can be seen from the fact that soon after being served with the requisite document on 29/7/2021 and understanding that the 30 days to file supplementary record had elapsed, the applicant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 356/17 of 2021 for extension of time to file supplementary record as ordered, which was marked withdrawn on 15/3/2023. On 3/4/2023, the applicant filed the instant application. He thus urged us to grant the prayers sought so that the supplementary record may be filed and the requisite appeal proceed with hearing on merit. On his part, the respondent implored us to determine the matter according to the law as being a layperson, he had nothing to expound on the issue. He did not press for costs. There was no rejoinder from the learned counsel for the applicant.

Having heard the respondent and the learned counsel for the appellant, it is undisputed that there is pending in Court, Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2018, whose hearing scheduled for 22/11/2019 was adjourned, the Court having granted the applicant's prayers to file supplementary record. Therefore, the issue for determination is whether the applicant has advanced good cause for the delay to file the said supplementary record for us to vary our order and extend time for him to file the same. The law is settled. This Court has held numerous times that no particular reason or reasons have been set out as standard good reasons. What constitutes good cause cannot therefore be laid down by any hard and fast rules. Addressing what is good cause is dependent upon the circumstances of each case as observed in Abdalla Salanga and 63 Others v. Tanzania Harbours Authority, Civil Application No. 4 of 2001 and Citibank (Tanzania) Limited v. TTCL, TRA and Others, Civil Application No. 97 of 2003 CAT (both unreported). Having scrutinized and considered the record of appeal before us particularly, the affidavit supporting the notice of motion and the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, we are satisfied that the applicant has shown diligence and expedience in pursuing the missing

documents and that the delay to file the supplementary record of appeal on time was not caused by negligence or misapprehension of justice. In the event, we grant the applicant's prayer for extension of time within which to file supplementary record and invariably, in terms of rule 64(2) of the Rules, vary our order of 22/11/2019, to allow the applicant to file the same within 30 days of this order. Costs to be in the cause. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 7th day of August, 2025. Ruling delivered this 7th day of August, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Amin Mohamed Mshana, learned counsel for the Applicant and Respondent W. B. KOROSSO JUSTICE OF APPEAL 0. O. MAKUNGU JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. M. RUMANYIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL via Tele ' • • ■ ■ - copy of the original. 6