Getruda Nkoboli Kahata vs William Bishashe Bacha (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 29038 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 3030 (8 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT KIGOMA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 000029038 OF 2025 GETRUDA NKOBOLI KAHATA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS WILLIAM BISHASHE BACHA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING RWIZILE, J On the day Application No. 78 of 2024 was scheduled for mention, the District Land and Housing Tribunal, of Kasulu(tribunal) dismissed the same for want of prosecution. The applicant was discontent, and therefore filed Miscellaneous Application No. 06 of 2025 praying for, among other things, setting aside the dismissal order in Land Application No. 78 of 2014. Once again, fortunate was not on his side, the tribunal dismissed his application for being time-barred. He applied for time extension to file an application, yet is was rejected at the admission stage in terms of annexure C in the applicant’s affidavit. Her further effort to apply for extension of time to file an application for revision of the decision in Land Application No. 78 of 2024, was withdrawn since it sought no Page. 1

proper remedy before this court. Resort was taken to file a proper application for extension of time to appeal against the dismissal order in Land Application No. 78 of 2024. The applicant’s affidavit supporting this application stated reasons for delay and asked this court to granted the application on ground of illegality. In his oral argument for the applicant, Mr. Ignatius Kagashe learned advocate submitted that the decision by the Tribunal was made under Rule 11(1) of GN 147 of 2003, because it was made on the day the matter was scheduled for mention not hearing. He was content that the decision by the tribunal was contrary to the case of Fakhria Shamji vs The Registered Trustees of The Khoja Shia Ithnasheria (mza) Jamaat (Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2019) [2022] TZCA 77 (25 February 2022). He further cited the case of Lea Associates South Asia Pvt vs Commissioner General (TRA) (Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2025) [2025] TZCA 1222 (28 November 2025) and Yusufu Selemani Kimaro vs Administrative General & Others (Civil Appeal 266 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 306 (24 May 2022) to buttress his argument that, a serious irregularity may be sufficient reason to grant the application for extension of time. On his part, the respondent, who was not represented, prayed, the application be scrutinized because it has been ruled in his favour ever since the matter was litigated before the tribunals. Having heard briefs of the parties. It is noted that the impugned decision is a dismissal order in Land Application No. 78 of 2024. It was made on 25 th Page. 2

October 2024. It is pegged under Rule 11(1)(b) perhaps of the Land Disputes Courts (The District land and Housing Tribunal) Regulation 2003, GN No. 174 of 2003 applying in the Tribunals stating that; “On the day the application is fixed for hearing the Tribunal- (a) where the parties to the application are present proceed to hear the evidence on both sides and determine the application; (b) where the applicant is absent without good cause, and had received notice of hearing or was present when the hearing date was fixed, dismiss the application for non-appearance of the applicant;” The record has it that, on 16 October 2024 and 25 October 2025 the tribunal th th acted as follows; Tarehe: 16/10/2024 Akidi : M. EGBERT - Mwenyekiti Mleta maombi: Hayupo Wajibu maombi: Yupo Wajumbe : Karani: Hope Baraza: Muombaji hayupo Amri: Kutajwa 25/10/2024 Sgd Page. 3

Mourice-Mwenyekiti 16/10/2024 Tarehe: 25/10/2024 Akidi: M. EGBERT - Mwenyekiti Mleta maombi: Hayupo Wajibu maombi: Yupo Wajumbe: 1. Anastazia 2. Elias Karani: Hope Baraza: Mleta maombi amekuwa ahudhurii shauri lake. Hivyo shauri hili linatupiliwa mbali kwa mjibu wa sheria. lmeamuriwa hivyo. Sgd M. Egbert - Mwenyekiti 25/10/2024 It is clear from the record that the order made by the tribunal on 16 October th 2024 was that on 25 October2024, the case be fixed for mention. Certainly, th the dismissal order was made on the date the application was scheduled for mention. In the view of the learned counsel for applicant, it is contrary to the holding in the case of Mr. Lembrice Israel Kivuyo vs. M/s DHL World Wide Page. 4

Express DHL Tanzani limited (Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2008) [2010] TZCA 344 (24 August 2010) where a distinction between the words ‘mention’ and ‘hearing’ was made. It was his view further that, since the tribunal applied regulation 11(1)(b) of the Land Disputes Courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, 2003 on a mention date. The decision was illegal, and so it is an illegality sufficient to grant this application as made clear in the case of Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence and National Service vs. Valambhia (1992 TLR C.A. 185) [1992] TZCA 91 (3 July 1992) where it was held that; “In our view when the point at issue is one alleging illegality on the decision being challenged, the Court has a duty even if it means extending the time for the purpose to ascertain the point and if the alleged illegality is established, to take appropriate measures to put the matter and the record right.” I think the applicant is right. It has been established that the decision complained of was made perhaps in contravention of the law. This, I think constitutes an illegality sufficient to grant this application as prayed. I accordingly, grant it. The applicant is to file his appeal in 21 days from the day of this ruling. That is, by 29 June 2026. There is no order as to costs, based th on the nature of the parties and the application itself. Dated at KIGOMA this 9th of June 2026 . Page. 5

A. K RWIZILE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 6