Bank of Tanzania vs Margareth Kumalija and 4 Others (Civil Application No. 11 of 2013) [2014] TZCA 2333 (27 February 2014)

I I 'I I' • I I 'I '· ,1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATARUSHA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11 OF 2013 ..,· BANK OF TANZANIA ..................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS

1. MARGARETH KUMALIJA
2. EVA MSAMO
3. LUCAS MASIGAZWA .................. RESPONDENTS

s. ZUHURA MBULU EVARIST MUZE (Application for extension of time within which to serve the respondents Notice of Appeal and other documents, from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha) (Massengi, J.) Dated the 19 th day of December, 2012 In Misc. Civil Application No. 86 of 2006 RULING Date 27Feb. & 4 March, 2014 BWANA, J.A.: : 1 This application has a chequered history extending from 1995. While I ,, ·I 1 : the applicant had the services of Mr. Elvaison Maro, learned Advocate, the \ respondents at one time had M/s Herbert Makange and Company as their 'i ' ,1 advocates, up to 19 December, 2012. Thereafter, Mr. Makange declined services on behalf of the respondents for lack of instructions. Subsequent effects to trace the respondents' physical addresses were partly successful. Only the first and second respondents were found and attended the Court's 1

2014. The whereabout of the other respondents is not known and that led Mr. Maro to pray for substituted service by way of Registered post pursuant to Rule 22 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 and Order V Rule 21(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (the CPC). This Notice of Motion was filed pursuant to Rule 10, 22(1) (8) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009 (the Rules). In an application of this kind, the applicant has to show good cause to justify the delay by explaining to the satisfaction of the Court why he could not comply with the time frame provided under the law. The Notice of Motion lodged here is supported by affidavits of Mr. Maro, Advocate, and some other staff of his law firm and a Dar es Salaam based process server employed by the Judiciary. All these persons aver in their respective affidavits why their attempts to have the respondents served were not successful; the obstacles they faced, and the like. This is in line with the decision of this Court in Haidari Thabit Kombo & 10 Others vs Abbas Khatib Haji & Another; Civil Application No. 207 of 2006 ( unreported) where it stated: 2

"Before this Court was an application for extension of time. What was needed were reasons to explain why the delay ..... such reasons would be evidential and woul~ have to appear in the supporting affidavit. .. ( emphasis provided) I adopt the same. Having gone through the affidavits and the reasons for the delay shown and there having no objection to the application from the first and second respondents who attended Court proceedings, I grant the application. Therefore, the applicant is granted thirty (30) days from the date of delivery of this Ruling - within which to serve the relevant documents to the respondents. Third, fourth and fifth respondents to be served by way of Registered Post. It is so ordered. DATED at ARUSHA this 27 th day of February, 2014. SJ. BWANA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a of th I DE RE C TOFA 3 .... ·--- ------=- ,-----':- . ··- ----- -- .,...-__ - - - - ....

-· .. . - . .. ' ··• ..... ""· .. ~.. .... -• . . . . .. ·. .