Attorney General and Another vs Summer Estate Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 4147 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2989 (5 June 2026)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MBEY SUB-REGISTRY AT MBEYA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 4147 OF 2026 (Originating from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya at Mbeya in Land Application No. 58 o f2022) THE ATTORNEY GEN ERAL ........................................................ 1 st APPLICANT TANZANIA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (TARI) ..... 2 nd APPLICANT VERSUS SUMMER ESTATE LM ITED .................................................... 1 st RESPONDENT EPHRAIM ANYELWISYE KWAPINDOMO............................... 2 nd RESPONDENT REIACHARD JONAS MWANTENGULE.......................................3 rd RESPONDENT JELAS JOHN MWANTENGULE...................................................4™ RESPONDENT MBWIGA H. LEZA ......................................................................5™ RESPONDENT ERASTO MATHIAS MWANTENGULE......................................... 6™ RESPONDENT RULING Date of the last Order: 28.05.2026 Date of the Ruling: 05.06.2026 A.E. Mwipopo, J. The Attorney General and Tanzania Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), the applicants, filed the present application for extension of time to ee of t he Disirlctr Land and i
\ Housing Tribunal for Mbeya at Mbeya in Application No. 58 of 2022. The respondents in this case are Summer Estate Limited, Ephraim Anyelwisye Kwapindomo, Richard Jonas Mwantengule, Jelas John Mwantengule, Mbwiga H. Leza, and Erasto Mathias Mwantengule. The application was instituted by chamber summons supported with the affidavit sworn by Selina Mloge, the principal officer of the second applicant. The applicants prayed for the following orders:
- That this honourable court be pleased to extend time within which the applicants can make an application to file a revision against the judgment and decree o f the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application No. 58 o f2022 delivered on the 23rd January 2023.
- Costs of the application be provided for.
- Any other relief(s) as this honourable court may deem fit to grant. John Johnson Summer, the principal officer of the first respondent, and the third respondent filed a joint counter-affidavit in opposition to the application. The second, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents did not file their counter-affidavit. The brief background of the application show that the 1st respondent successfully lodged an Application No. 58 of 2022 in the District Land and Housinq Tribunal for Mbeva at Mbeva claimina ownershio of the suit omnertv biiudieu di sde steei, uomDa vvara, witmn moeya uty against tne zna, jra, 2
4th, 5th, and 6th respondents. In the judgment delivered on the 23rd January, 2023, the Mbeya District land and Housing Tribunal declared the 1st respondent to be the lawful owner of the suit land. The applicants claims that the said piece of land located at Sai Street, Ilomba Ward, within Mbeya City is a surveyed area with a title No. 2333 MBYLR, Farm No. 339 Uyole Agricultural Centre, owned by the’ 2nd applicant, who was formerly known as Uyole Agricultural Centre. The 2nd applicant was not a party to the Application No. 58 of 2022 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya at Mbeya. On the 22nd April 2024/the 2nd applicant received a letter from the 2nd respondent informing the existence of the judgement and decree delivered in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya at Mbeya, which declared the 1st respondent to be the lawfully owner of the portion of land within the landed property owned by the 2nd applicant. The 2nd applicant did peruse the judgement of the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application No. 58 of 2022 and was satisfied that the trial tribunal determined the matter without joining the 2nd applicant, who is the owner of the suit land. The applicants filed Misc. Land Application No. 31523 of
revision against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya in Application No. 58 of 2022. The court delivered a decision on the 16th September 2025, granting 14 days leave to the applicants to file the application for revision. On the 29th September 2025 the applicants filed online in the e-CMS the revision application in the Corruption and Economic Crimes Division, instead of the High Court (Mbeya Sub- Registry). On the 12th February 2026 the applicants discovered the mistake and prayed for withdrawal of the wrongly filed application with leave to refile. On the same day, this court granted the prayer and the application was withdrawn with a leave to refile. The applicants were supplied with the Proceeding on the 17th February 2026, and on 18th February, 2026, they lodged this application for extension of time to file a revision out of the time. On the hearing date, the applicants were represented by Mr Joseph Tibaijuka, Ms Lilian Kimaro, and Ms Winnie Sengo, State Attorneys, the first and the third respondents were represented by Advocate Beatrice Kessy, the second, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents were present in person without legal representation. The hearing proceeded whereby parties were invited to present their oral submission.
Mr Joseph Tibaijuka, the state attorney, submitted that on the 18th February 2026, the applicants filed this application for an extension of time to file revision application against the decision and orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya District in Application No. 58 of 2022. The decision of the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal was delivered in favour of the first respondent. iVi the proceedings, neither the first nor the second applicants were parties in the proceedings before the trial District Land and Housing Tribunal. The applicants became aware of the case before the district land and housing tribunal after receiving a letter from the second respondent. The applicants successfully filed an application for extension of time before this court in Misc. Land Application No. 31523 of 2024, and this court granted 14 days to the applicants to file revision application before or on 16th September 2025. The applicants filed a revision application within time on the 29th September 2025. However, the revision application before this court was filed Economic Crime Division Registry in the Case Management System (e-CMS), which was a wrong registry. Following the error, the applicants prayed that this court grant to the applicants leave to withdraw the application for a revision with a leave to refiled a revision in a
proper registry of this court. Thereafter the applicant filed the present application for an extension of time to file a revision to this court. The counsel said they are aware that extension of time is a discretion of the court. However, the court has to consider in granting the application for an extension of time that the applicant has accounted for the delay, the delay should not be inordinate, the applicant must show due diligence, and other sufficient reasons such as an illegality in the face of record, as it was held in Lyamuya Construction Company Limited vs Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (Y.W.C.A.), Civil Application No. 02 of 2010, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha, on page 6. The applicants were not part of the case before the District Land and Housing Tribunal and had no information regarding the case instituted in the District Land and Housing Tribunal until on the 22nd April 2024 when the first applicant received a letter from the second respondent regarding the presence of the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal on the second applicant's land. From the 22nd April 2024 the applicants made a follow up to the District Land and Housing and were given the copies of the proceedings and judgment. On the 25th April 2024_f the^ppJ J x^rii-^-iUad
before this court applying for an extension of time to file a revision. In its ruling dated on the 16th September 2025, this court granted the application and the applicants were given 14 days to apply for a revision. On the 29 September 2025, the applicants filed online the application for revision before this court which was filed on a wrong registry. On the 12th February 2026, the applicants discovered the mistake and applied for a leave to withdraw the application with a leave to refile it in the proper registry and this court granted the prayer. On the same day (the 12th February 2026) the applicants submitted a letter applying for copies of proceedings and order of this court to the Deputy Registrar. The applicants were served with the applied copies on the 17th February 2026, and on 18th February 2026 they filed the present application for an extension of time. The applicants have accounted for each day of the delay, have been diligent is pursuing the matter, the delay is not inordinate, and the applicants acted very fast to file the present application. The state attorney added that another reason for extending time to file a revision is the presence of illegality in the record of the record of the trial District Land and Housing tribunal whereby the applicants were denied
with a title deed. In the case before the district land and housing tribunal, the applicants were not made a party to the case, hence they were denied their right to be heard. The delay in this case is a technical delay. In Kafoi Estate Limited vs Elias Obadia Kimario, Misc. Labour Application No. 14 of 2021, High Court Labour Division at Dar Es Salaam, (unreported), on page 6, it was held that a technical delay is a good ground for extension of time. He prayed that the application be allowed so that they can get our right to be heard. In her reply submission, the counsel for the first and third respondents submitted that there was Application No. 98 of 2022 in the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal which the applicants had no interest as seen on page 10 of the counter-affidavit, and the trial tribunal proceeded to determine the case on merit in favour of the first and third respondent. After the delivery of judgment, the applicants filed an application for an extension of time to file a revision before this court and they were granted their prayer. The applicants were negligent as they filed their revision application in the Corruption and Economic Crimes Division of the High Court, which was a wrong forum. As a result, they prayed to withdraw their revision. It was a bad use of the rn u j^ jscr^ io a Jt^ ^ ^ pplira-^ In filer
their case in the proper forum will be granted leave to file another case out of time. This court in Gidajuli Shaun alias Maiko vs the DPP, Misc. Criminal Application No. 40499 of 2024, High Court Manyara Sub-Registry at Babati rejected to determine the similar application because it had no jurisdiction to determine similar application for extension of time- for the second time. In the cited case, the applicant was denied his application for extension of time and filed another application for the extension of time before the same court. The similar stance was taken in Njenje Zefania vs Amos Shija, Civil Application No. 678/1 of 2024, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar Es Salaam (unreported), on pages 4 and 5, where the Court dismissed the application for an extension of time on ground that the applicant and his counsel were negligent. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants filed the case in the wrong registry. The applicants are not supposed to benefit from their act of negligence. It was not the negligence or the error caused by the court. The legal counsels should be stopped from instituting endless cases. Litigation must come to an end. In Charles Kusenza vs Simon Kulwa and 3 Others, Civil Application No. 1384 of 2024, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar Es Salaam (unreported), on page
3, it was held that the litigation must come to an end and the Court dismissed the application which was instituted for the second time with costs. The counsel distinguished the case of Kapoi Estate Ltd cited by the applicants because the circumstances were different. In the cited case, the court case management system (JoT e-CMS) had just commenced, but in this case the e-CMS was stable and working properly when the case was instituted. When the applicants prayed and granted leave to withdraw the revision application filed on a wrong registry t the first and third respondents had already prepared a counter affidavit and were waiting for control number. In JUWATA VS KIUTA (1988) TLR 146, it was held that this court is bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal and this court should follow the cited cases from the court of appeal in its decision. The counsel prayed that the application be dismissed because the applicants were negligent. The second, fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents said they are not opposing this application, and as a result they decided not to file their counter affidavit. In rejoinder, the applicants' counsel re-affirmed their submission in
throughout were pursuing their rights in courts though in a wrong forum. The error of filing the revision in the wrong forum in the e-CMS was similar to typographical error that could be corrected by a pen. The decision which has no element for illegality may come to an end on the principle that the litigation must come to an end, but in this case, there is illegality. He distinguished the cited case of Gidajuli Shauri alias Maiko vs the DPP that in the cited case, the application was dismissed, but in this case, the revision was withdrawn with a leave to refile. He added that circumstances in the cited case of Njenje Zefania were different to the present case because the issue was a time limit for filing an application for extension of time to the Court of Appeal on the second bite, while in this court (High Court) there is no second bite. The same to the cited case of Charles Kusenza vs Simon Kulwa and 3 Others, the circumstances are different and the law applicable are different. The law applicable in the cited case is the Court of Appeal Rules. In the High Court there is no second bite. He prayed that the application be allowed so that illegality in the face of record of the trial tribunal be corrected.
After hearing the parties' submissions, it is upon this court to determine whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient or reasonable cause for this court to grant leave for extension of time. It is a trite law under section 44 (1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216 R.E. 2023 that all appeals, revisions and similar proceeding from or in respect of any proceeding in a District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be heard by the High Court. The Land Disputes Courts Act is silent on the time limit for filing a revision in respect of any proceedings in the District Land and Housing Tribunal in exercise of its original jurisdiction which is not an appeal. Linder section 3 (1) read together with Item 21 of Part III of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 R.E. 2023, the period of limitation for instituting an application under the Civil Procedure Code, the Magistrates' Courts Act or other written law for which no period of limitation is provided in the Act or any other written law is sixty days. Section 14 (1) of the Law of Limitation Act 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, and an application for such extension may be made either before or after the expiry nf H ip pprin/^-oOmiJ-jaJ^n-^afa^^
application. Thus, this court has discretion to extend time to file application against any proceedings of the District Land and Housing Tribunal, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously. In Martha Iswalile vs Marietha Salehe and Three Others, Civil Application No.5 of 2012, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mwanza (unreported), it was held that in exercising the discretion, the court must be satisfied that there are good grounds to decide in favour of an application. In Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd vs Board of Registered Trustee of Young Women Christian Association of Tanzania, (supra), on page 6, the court held that: "As a matter o f general principle, it is in the court's discretion to grant an extension o f time. However, that discretion is judicial\ so it must be exercised according to the rules o f reason and justice, not according to private opinion or arbitrarily. On the authorities, however, the following guidelines may be formulated: (a) The applicant must account for the period o f delay (b) The delay should not be inordinate (c) The applicant must show diligence and not apathy, negligence or sioppiness in the prosecution o f the action that he intends to take, (d) I f the Court feels that there are other sufficient reasons, such as the existence o f a point o f law o f sufficient importance, such as the illegality o f the decision sought to be challenged . " Borrowing the decision from the above-cited case, in the application fur an extension of time, tne court has to consider, among other factors, that 13
the applicant has accounted for all the period of delay, the delay should not be inordinate, the applicant must show due diligence and the existence of an apparent point of law of sufficient importance or illegality. The applicants have demonstrated two grounds for their delay to file the intended revision in this court in their affidavit and the submission. The first ground was a technical delay, and the second one was an illegality. As to the technical delay, this is a good reason for the extension of time, as it was held in Bharya Engineering and Contracting Co. Ltd vs Hamoud Ahmad @ Nassor, Civil Application No. 342/01 of 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Tabora (Unreported). In the case of Fortunatus Masha vs William Shija and another [1997] TLR. 154, the Court of Appeal held that: "A distinction has to be drawn between cases involving real or actual delays and those such as the present one, which clearly only involved a technical delay in the sense that the original appeal was lodged in time but was incompetent for one or another reason and a fresh appeal had to be instituted. In the present case, the applicant had acted immediately after the pronouncement o f the court rulingstriking out the first appeal. In these circumstances, an extension o f time ought to be granted . "
In this case, the applicants have shown that on the 22nd April 2024, the 2nd applicant received a letter from the 2nd respondent informing them the existence of the judgement and decree delivered in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya at Mbeya, which declared the 1st respondent to be the lawfully owner of the land within the land owned by the 2nd applicant. The 2nd applicant did peruse the Judgement of the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application No. 58 of 2022. After being satisfied that the trial tribunal determined the matter without joining the 2nd applicant, the applicants filed Misc. Land Application No. 31523 of 2024 in this court applying for an extension of time within which to file a revision against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mbeya in Application No. 58 of 2022. This court delivered a ruling on the 16th of September 2025, granting 14 days leave to the applicants to file the application for revision. On the 29th of September 2025 the applicants filed online in the e-CMS the revision application in the Corruption and Economic Crimes Division registry, instead of the High Court Mbeya Sub- Registry. On the 12th of February 2026 the applicants discovered the mistake and prayed to withdrawal the revision application for being filed in the wrong with leave to refile. On the same day, l his-couj±-g43ated4he-pfavef7^4-fc^^ llidrawrr~ 15
with a leave to refile. The applicants were supplied with the proceedings and the court order on the 17th of February 2026, and on 18th February 2026, they lodged this application for extension of time to file a revision out of the time. After receiving the proceedings and orders of this court, the applicants used one day to file this application for extension of time. I'm satisfied that the delay was technical. The applicant filed the first application for extension of time to file a revision immediately after they were informed by the 2nd respondent through a letter about the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application No. 58 of 2022. After they were granted revision by this court leave to file, they filed the revision within time, but in the wrong court registry. During all this time, the applicants were in the court corridor seeking revision of this court. After discovering that they had filed the revision in the wrong registry of this court, the applicants prayed to withdraw the revision with a leave to refile and their prayer was granted. Thereafter, it took the applicants one day to file the present application after they received a copy of proceedings and orders of this court. I find that the time used to file the present application for an extension of time after this court granted the applicants leave to refile was very
it was claimed by the counsel for the first and third respondents. The mistake in filing the case in the wrong forum in the online Case Management System happen similar to the slip of the pen in the document. The mistake is not the proof of negligence or sloppiness on the part of the applicants. This ground alone is sufficient to allow the application. Regarding the illegality, the applicants stated that they are the lawful owner of the suit land in Application No. 58 of 2022 before the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal, but they were denied right to be heard. Illegality being a legal mistake that ought to be corrected by an appellate court to rectify the position of the law is a sufficient reason for the extension of time. See the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence and National Service vs Devlam Valamhhia [1992] TLR.185 on page 189, Stade Mwaseba vs Edward Mwakatundu, Misc. Land Application No. 19 of 2019, High Court at Mbeya (Unreported). The illegality sufficient for the extension of time must be apparent on the face of the record and need not be discovered by a long-drawn argument. See. Efrasia Mfugale vs Andrew J. Ndimbo and Another, Civil Application No. 38/10 of 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Iringa (unreported), and Lyamuya Construction Cn. Ltd- MS- Bo a rd nf Rng ir.tnrnri Trti«fr a g n f Y n u m nr 17
Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (supra), on pages 9 and 10 of the judgment. In the present case, the applicants stated that they are the lawful owner with a title deed of the suit land in Application No. 58 of 2022 before the Mbeya District Land and Housing Tribunal, but they were denied right to be heard because they were not joined in the application before the trial tribunal. The applicants have demonstrated interest in the suit land and since they were not afforded the right to be heard, they deserve such a right through revision since they were not party to the suit before the trial District Land and Housing Tribunal. Therefore, the application is allowed. The applicants are granted leave to file the revision in this court before or on the 26th of June 2026. In the circumstances of this case, each party shall bear his own costs of this application. It is so ordered accordingly. Dated and signed at Mbeya on the 5th day of June 2026. 18