Michael Israel Kilasi vs Ally Salum Mtotela and Others (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 000013404 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2939 (4 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT LINDI MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 000013404 OF 2026 MICHAEL ISRAEL KILASI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS ALLY SALUM MTOTELA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT ABDEREHEMANI AMLI MMANJA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT MICHAEL IZIRAELI CLASS .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING KAINDA, J This is an application brought under Section 41(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, [ Cap. 216 R.E. 2019] and Section 14 of the Law of Limitation Act, [Cap. 89 R.E. 2019] seeking extension of time to enable the applicant to file a revision against the judgment and decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Kilwa at Kilwa Masoko in Land Application No. 11 of 2025 delivered on 17 February 2026. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by Ms. Regina Herman, learned advocate for the applicant. The affidavit sets out the circumstances that led to the delay in filing the intended revision within the prescribed period. It is deponed that the dispute before the District Land and Housing Tribunal was instituted by the 1st respondent against the 2nd and 3rd respondents concerning ownership of a parcel of land situated at Kiranjeranje Ward in Kilwa District. According to the applicant, he had previously acquired the suit property from the 2nd respondent and was therefore a person directly affected by the proceedings and the resultant judgment. However, he was neither joined as a party nor afforded an opportunity to be heard before the Tribunal rendered its decision. The affidavit further shows that the applicant became aware of the proceedings only upon receiving summons relating to the delivery of judgment. Thereafter, he promptly sought and obtained copies of the judgment and decree and proceeded to lodge Revision No. 9432 of 2026 before this Court. During the proceedings of that revision, the Court noted discrepancies relating to the names appearing in the proceedings and judgment of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the parties reflected in the original land application. Consequently, counsel for the applicant sought leave to withdraw the revision so that the apparent clerical errors could first be rectified by the Tribunal. The revision was accordingly struck out. Page. 1

The material placed before the Court further demonstrates that immediately thereafter the applicant, through his advocate, undertook steps before the Tribunal to secure correction of the identified errors. Correspondence was exchanged with the Tribunal and several follow-ups were made until the corrected judgment and decree were eventually made available to the applicant on 25 May 2026. It is the applicant’s contention that throughout the period following the delivery of the judgment he remained actively engaged in pursuing legal remedies and that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control, particularly the need to obtain corrected copies of the judgment and decree following the clerical errors identified by this Court. The application came for hearing on 4 June 2026 through a virtual platform. Ms. Regina Herman, learned counsel for the applicant, appeared from Dar es Salaam, while Mr. Fadhili Adam, learned counsel for the respondents, appeared from Sengerema, Mwanza. When the matter was called for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the respondents had no objection to the application and consented to the prayer for extension of time being granted. Learned counsel for the applicant adopted the affidavit in support of the application and further informed the Court that the applicant was not pressing for costs. The application was therefore left for determination on the basis of the affidavit evidence on record and the parties’ respective submissions made orally before the Court. I have carefully considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the position taken by both parties. The principles governing applications for extension of time are well settled. The Court is required to consider, among other factors, the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the intended proceeding is arguable, and whether granting the application would occasion prejudice to the opposite party. The power to enlarge time is discretionary and must be exercised judicially and in the interests of justice. In the present matter, the judgment sought to be challenged was delivered on 17 February 2026. The affidavit evidence satisfactorily explains the events that followed thereafter. The applicant requested and obtained copies of the judgment and decree, lodged a revision before this Court, and subsequently withdrew the same after clerical irregularities were noted and required rectification by the Tribunal. The chronology disclosed in the affidavit demonstrates continuous efforts on the part of the applicant to pursue his intended remedy. The delay cannot therefore be described as deliberate, negligent or inordinate. Rather, it was substantially attributable to procedural developments connected with the correction of errors appearing in the Tribunal’s judgment and decree. I am also satisfied that the intended revision is not frivolous. The applicant contends, among other matters, that he was a purchaser of the suit property and that orders affecting his proprietary interests were made without his participation in the proceedings. Whether those complaints will ultimately succeed is a matter for determination in the intended revision, but they cannot at this stage be dismissed as devoid of merit. It is equally significant that the respondents have not opposed the application. Although the absence of opposition does not automatically entitle an applicant to the orders sought, it is a relevant factor when considered alongside the explanation tendered and the overall interests of justice. In the circumstances of this case, no prejudice likely to be suffered by the respondents has been demonstrated. On the other hand, denying the applicant an opportunity to challenge the impugned decision may result in shutting him out from the seat of justice without a hearing on the merits. The Court is guided by the established principle that, whenever reasonably possible, disputes should be determined on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities. The explanation advanced by the applicant is satisfactory and constitutes sufficient cause for enlargement of time. Accordingly, this application succeeds. The applicant is hereby granted extension of time within which to file the intended revision against the judgment and decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Kilwa at Kilwa Masoko in Land Application No. 11 of 2025 delivered on 17 February 2026. The intended revision shall be filed within Twenty-one (21) days from the date of this ruling. As the application was not opposed and counsels for the applicant expressly abandoned the claim for costs, I make no order as to costs. Page. 2 It is so ordered .

Page. 3 Dated at LINDI this 5th of June 2026 . S. J KAINDA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Page. 4