Athumani Salimu vs Bansal Steel Rolling Mill Ltd (Miscellaneous Labour Application No. 000003672 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 3095 (10 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA MISCELLANEOUS LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 000003672 OF 2026 ATHUMANI SALIMU .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS BANSAL STEEL ROLLING MILL LTD .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING NDUMBARO, J 19/05/2026 & 10/06/2026 NDUMBARO, J Appellants moved this court under the provisions of section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E. 2023 seeking extension to file a Notice of Appeal against the decision of this Court delivered on 17th October 2025. The applicant's affidavit is to the effect that the applicant claimed to have delayed filing notice of appeal within the prescribed statutory time of 30 days to the court of appeal on two reasons: medical incapacity and illegality. The applicant further states that the matter was fixed for judgment on 15/10/2025, Page. 1

but it was pronounced on 17/10/2025 when he was away from Arusha. When the matter was before the court, the applicant was represented by Mr Herode Byamtwe, the applicant's Personal Representative, and the respondent enjoyed the service of Ms Ikoda Kazi, Advocate. The matter was argued orally. The applicant and respondent pleaded to adopt their affidavit and the counter affidavit, respectively, to form part of their submission. It was the submission of Mr Herode on the first ground that the applicant travelled outside Arusha for medical treatment and returned in January 2026; due to the injury incurred in the course of his employment; the matter was fixed for judgment on 15/10/2025, but it was pronounced on 17/10/2026, without notice to the parties, and he only became aware of the judgment upon his return in January 2026. On the second ground, the Applicant pleads illegality, asserting that the underlying contract of employment had been nullified by an arbitrator to deny his right to be heard as enshrined under Article 13 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The exhibits were admitted by the CMA without his comment or participation. He maintains that these grounds constitute sufficient cause and that the intended appeal has a high prospect of success. In reply, Ms Ikoda submitted that the Applicant failed to meet the legal threshold for "sufficient cause"; the respondent argues that it is the duty of parties to follow up on their cases; the applicant was represented and was present when the matter was fixed for judgment, but the applicant and his representative who is the same person representing him for this application; Page. 2

failed to attend court on the date fixed for the ruling. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant failed to account for each day of delay from the date the ruling was pronounced to the date of filing this application. On the issue of illegality, the respondent maintains that it is not apparent on the face of it; Argue that any alleged illegality must be apparent on the face of the record to warrant an extension of time, which is not in this case. Having heard the parties' submission, it is apparent that Section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act Cap. 89 R.E. 2023 provides that the court may, for any reasonable or sufficient cause, extend the period of limitation for the institution of an appeal or an application. However what constitute "sufficient cause" is not rigidly defined by statute but is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised based on the facts of each case it was established in the landmark case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (Civil Application 2 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 4 (3 October 2011), that the Court must consider several factors as: Whether the applicant has accounted for the entire period of delay; Whether the delay is inordinate; Whether the applicant has demonstrated diligence rather than apathy or negligence; and whether there are other sufficient reasons, such as a point of law of sufficient importance or a patent illegality. This position was recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Chief Secretary & Others v. Pere Muganda, TZCA 433, where it was held that "reasonable or sufficient cause" depends on the peculiar circumstances of Page. 3

each case, and the court’s discretion is broad. Referring to the matter at hand, the applicant alleges sickness and medical treatment. That he travelled from the date when the matter was fixed for judgment, 15/10/2025, and the judgment was pronounced on 17/10/2025, and returned on 31 January 2026. Alleges that his travel for medical treatment constitutes a sufficient cause for enlarging the time by this court. The attached medical receipt from Maore dispensary shows that the applicant was attended to by Mr Peter Richard, a clinical officer, on 27/01/2026, and was given 5 days' rest. It is apparent that sickness is a valid ground for extension; however, the law requires that such a claim be supported by credible evidence. In the present application, there are no medical certificates or hospital discharge summaries to substantiate the duration from 15/10/2025 to 17/10/2025 when the judgment was pronounced. Further, the attached medical report was dated 27/01/2026; despite this, it does not show the severity of the incapacity, reflecting that the applicant failed to attend before the court on the date of pronouncing judgment. The principle set out in Lyamuya Construction (supra) requires an applicant to account for "all the period of delay". The Applicant's claim was away until January 2026, but he failed to provide a day-to-day account of his actions between the date he discovered the judgment and the date he eventually filed this application. The applicant did not deny that he was present when the matter was fixed for judgment, and he was with representation of the same counsel representing him for this application; that he was aware that judgment ought to Page. 4

be pronounced on 15/07/2025; if he or his personal representative attended the date of judgment, he could obviously know the next scheduled date of judgment, which was 17/10/2026 and acted promptly. On Illegality regarding the nullification of his contract and the breach of his right to be heard, argued since the said illegality, it is apparent on the face of the record and does not require a "long-drawn-out argument" or a deep dive into the merits of the case; it serves as a self-standing ground for extension. Referring to the case of The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service v. Devram Valambhia (1992) TLR 387, to support the argument; that which established that a point of law of sufficient importance, such as an illegality, can constitute a sufficient reason for extension. In this matter, the applicant's claims of illegality were based on the admission of exhibits in CMA; it is my view that the claimed illegality is not "ex facie" and may call for a long-drawn argument, as it was stated in the case of Lyamuya , supra. It is my further view that the applicant’s failure to attend the date fixed for ruling suggests a degree of negligence; the law does not assist the indolent. Due to that backdrop, I find that the Applicant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire duration of the delay. The medical grounds were not supported by documentary evidence, and the alleged illegalities are not apparent on the face of the record to warrant a departure from the strict requirements of the Law of Limitation. Page. 5

Consequently, this application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs, as this is a matter arising from a labour dispute where the parties were in an employer-employee relationship. . It is so ordered. Dated at ARUSHA this 10th of June 2026 . D. D NDUMBARO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 6