Julius M Ichael vs Paulo Bromo and Others (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 000030214 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2987 (3 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MANYARA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 000030214 OF 2025 JULIUS M ICHAEL ............................... COMPLAINANT I APPELLANT I APPLICANT I PLAINTIFF VERSUS PAULO BROMO AND TWO OTHERS...............................RESPONDENT I DEFENDANT RULING KAMUZORA, J 1st April & 3rd June, 2026 The applicant has brought the present application under section 14 (1) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap. 89 R.E 2023], (henceforth the LLA), seeking for one substantive relief that this court be pleased to extend time for the applicant to file appeal against the decision of the district land and housing tribunal for Babati at Babati in Land Application No. 29 of 2023. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant himself. On the other hand, the respondents filed a counter affidavit to contest the application. Page. 1

Briefly as it could be gathered from the record, the applicant sued the respondents before the district land and housing tribunal for Babati vide Land Application No. 29 of 2023 for recovery of a piece of land measuring 3% acres situated at Milimani village, Milimani hamlet in Nangwa ward with Hanang district. It is on record that, the applicant’s case was dismissed following a preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the trial tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The applicant being aggrieved with the ruling dismissing his case intended to appeal against it but was unable to do so timely, hence this application. Hearing of this application proceeded by way of written submissions. The applicant appeared in person while the first respondent was represented by Mr. Nicomed Qamunga, learned advocate. The second and third respondents did not enter appearance. In his submissions, the applicant urged this Court to grant the relief sought for the following reasons. First, he submitted that he had initially lodged the appeal before this Court within time, albeit using the account of a third party. That, following procedural changes in the electronic filing system, he withdrew the appeal and was thereafter required to re-file the same using his own personal account. He insisted that, there was no negligence on his part rather technical adjustments which were beyond his control. He referred the case of Denis T. Page. 2

Mkasa vs Farida Hamza & Others (Civil Application 407 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 801 (8 December 2022) in which it was observed that, technical delay is a sufficient cause. He also referred the case of Christopher Cosmas vs Furaha Evarist (Misc. Civil Application 67 of 2021) [2021] TZHC 5841 (30 August 2021) in which this court referred the case of Fortunatus Masha vs William Shija & Another [1997] TLR 154. On further submissions, the applicant contended that the proceedings before the trial tribunal were tainted with serious irregularities and illegalities. In particular, he pointed out that the matter was transferred from one chairperson to another without any reasons being assigned for such transfer. He referred the cases of Mirage Lite Ltd vs Best Tigra Industries Ltd (Criminal Appeal 78 of 2016) [2019] TZCA 332 (20 September 2019), Joseph Wasonga Otieno vs Assumpter Nshunju Mshama (Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2016) [2017] TZCA 179 (24 October 2017) in which the Court of Appeal observed that irregular taking over of matter between judicial officers without stating reason vitiates the proceedings subsequent of such taking over. The applicant also referred the case of Attorney General vs Emmanuel Marangakisi (Civil Application No. 138 of 2019) [2023] TZCA 63 (24 February 2023) in which it was observed that, allegations of illegality is a good cause for extension of time even if the applicant failed to account on each day of the delay. He therefore, urged this court to grant the prayer sought. Page. 3

In reply, Mr. Qamunga submitted that, in application for extension of time, section 14(1) of the LLA requires good cause be shown. He referred the case of Tanga Cement Co. Ltd vs Jumanne D. Masangwa & Another (Civil Application 6 of 2001) [2004] TZCA 45 (8 April 2004) in which the Court of Appeal observed that what amounts to “sufficient cause” has not been defined; however, a number of factors are ordinarily considered, including whether the application was brought promptly, the presence or absence of a valid explanation for the delay and the level of diligence exhibited by the applicant. He referred the 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). Counsel submitted that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the grant of the application. He argued that the contention that the applicant was compelled to withdraw the appeal in order to re-file it using his personal account cannot assist the applicant. He insisted that the applicant has failed to account for the period of delay. As to the alleged illegalities, counsel submitted that the same are not supported by the record, nor has the applicant demonstrated how he has been prejudiced thereby. Counsel further submitted that the applicant has neither explained when the said appeal was withdrawn nor when this application was filed. He referred the case of Mustafa Seif Ngane( Suing as Administrator of the Estate of late Seif Ngane ) vs Dr Elifuraha Elimbizi Saria & 70 Others (Land Page. 4

Review 324 of 2023) [2023] TZHCLandD 16884 (15 September 2023) in which it was observed that, a party who withdraws a matter with leave to refile must be aware that, time limit for refiling shall be computed from the date on which the impugned decision or order was delivered or made. He submitted that section 44(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap. 216 R.E. 2023] requires an appeal from the District Land and Housing Tribunal to be filed within forty-five (45) days. He contended that, since the impugned decision was delivered on 30/5/2025, the time for filing an appeal lapsed on 14/7/2025. He further argued that there is no evidence showing that an appeal was duly filed in this Court and subsequently withdrawn, nor is there any explanation as to when such filing and withdrawal allegedly occurred. Counsel further submitted that the applicant has failed to account for the entire period of delay, noting that almost eleven (11) months have elapsed since the impugned ruling was delivered. He referred the case of Hassan Bushiri vs Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 3 of 2007 (unreported) in which the Court of Appeal held that, delay of even a single day must be accounted for. As to the claim of illegality, counsel submitted that, the law is settled that the illegality must be of sufficient importance and it must be apparent on the face of the record such as the question of jurisdiction and not that, would be discovered by a long-drawn argument or process. He referred the case of Page. 5

Lyamuya Construction (supra) and urged this court to dismiss this application. On rejoinder the applicant essentially reiterated his submission in chief. He however added that, following the delivery of the impugned decision, he filed Land Appeal No. 16661 of 2025 but it was withdrawn on 21/8/2025. He submitted that, following the withdrawal of the said appeal he filed the instant application on 28th November 2025. Having gone through the parties’ rival submissions, the issue for determination is whether the applicant has advanced sufficient reason for this Court to grant an extension of time. As stated earlier, this application is brought under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, which empowers this Court to grant an extension of time upon reasonable or sufficient cause being shown. The provision does not define what constitutes reasonable or sufficient cause; hence, what amounts to reasonable or sufficient cause depends on the circumstances of each case. Through case law, both of this Court and the Court of Appeal, several factors have been identified to determine whether sufficient cause has been established. In the landmark case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd (supra), relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant, the Court of Appeal at pages 6-7 outlined the factors which serve as a yardstick in determining whether sufficient cause has been shown; Page. 6

(a) The applicant must account for all the period of delay. (b) The delay should not be inordinate. (c) The applicant must show diligence, and not apathy, negligence or sloppiness in the prosecution of the action that he intends to take. (d) If the court feels that there are other sufficient reasons, such as the existence of a point o f law of sufficient importance; such as the illegality of the decision sought to be challenged In his submissions, the learned advocate for the applicant advanced two reasons attributed to the applicant’s failure to file the intended appeal within time, namely technical delays and illegalities in the impugned decision. Starting with the claim of technical delay, it is a settled principle that, for technical delay to be established, it must be shown that there were proceedings instituted bona fide before a court or competent forum. The time spent in prosecuting such proceedings is then excluded in terms of section 21 of the Law of Limitation Act. See, the cases of AN Abdallah Abdi vs Selemani Said Marshed (Civil Application No. 794/17 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 570 (6 June 2025) and Kibaha Housing Cooperative Society Limited (KIHOCOSO) vs Judith Yoas & Others (Civil Application No. 343/17 of 2021) [2023] TZCA 17836 (16 November 2023). The applicant herein claimed that, after delivery of the impugned decision, he filed an appeal using a third-party account and was compelled to withdraw the same in order to refile it through an account registered in his own name. Although the applicant deposed to these facts in paragraphs 11 and 12 Page. 7

of his affidavit, he did not indicate when the alleged appeal was filed nor when it was withdrawn. Further, there is no documentary evidence on record to demonstrate that the said appeal was in fact filed. In his rejoinder submissions, the applicant contended that the appeal was withdrawn on 21st August 2025, while the present application was filed on 28th November 2025. However, upon a careful perusal of the annexures, there is no record of the filing of Land Appeal No. 16661 of 2025, nor any order evidencing its withdrawal. Even assuming, arguendo, that the applicant filed an appeal and subsequently withdrew it as alleged, and going by his rejoinder submissions, the appeal was withdrawn on 21st August 2025. On that premise, the applicant would have been entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting Land Appeal No. 16661 of 2025, if at all it was filed. Counting forty-five (45) days from 21st August 2025, the intended appeal ought to have been filed by 5th October 2025. However, the present application was filed on 28th November 2025, well beyond the prescribed period of forty-five (45) days. Accordingly, the period between 5th October and 28th November 2025 falls outside the scope of “technical delay” and ought to have been satisfactorily accounted for. Therefore, although I agree with the applicant that technical delay may, in appropriate cases, constitute sufficient cause for extension of time, in the present matter the applicant has failed to fully establish such delay. There Page. 8

remains a number of unexplained days, which disentitle the applicant from the benefit of the principle of technical delay. As to the allegation of illegality, it is settled law that, for illegality to be established, it must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which is to be unearthed through lengthy arguments or a protracted process of reasoning. This was underscored by the Court of Appeal in the case of Lyamuya Construction Company Limited (supra). The Court of Appeal stated; “The court emphasized that such point of law must be that “of sufficient importance” and I would add that it must be apparent on the face of the record, such as the question of jurisdiction; not one that would be discovered by long drawn argument or process.” The alleged illegality advanced by the applicant is grounded on the purported improper transfer of the matter between successor chairpersons without assignment of reasons. Upon perusal of the record, this Court noted that there was a change of the trial chairperson. However, the record is not clear as to which of the chairpersons handled the relevant objection. The proceedings are hereunder reproduced: - “MWENENDO Tarehe 16/1/2025 Akidi - N.M. Ntumengwa - Mkiti Bw. Hyera Bi. Hamida Mleta maombi: - Yup? Mjibu maombi: 1. Wakili Nikomedi Kwaisma 2,3. Hawapo Page. 9

Baraza: Baada ya kuteuliwa kutembelea Baraza hili na kusikiliza shauri hili kulingana na amri ya shauri la rufaa Na. 68/2023 Mahakama kuu masjala Manyara kuna shauri hili lisikilizwe mbele ya mwenyekiti mwengine nipo tayari kwa ajili ya kusikilizwa shauri hili. Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 16/1/2025 Wakili Nikomedi: Ni kweli hatuna pingamizi tupo tayari kuanza kusikiliza shauri hili mbele yako. Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 16/1/2025 Mdai: Sina pingamizi Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 16/1/2025 Amri: Mdaiwa wa 2&3 wapelekewe wito. Kusikilizwa tarehe 25/3/2025 Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 16/1/2025 Tarehe 25/3/2025 AKIDI: H.E. MWIHAVA - M/KITI Mleta maombi: Yupo Mjibu maombi: - Yupo/wakili Nikomedi Jwahison Amri: Shauri lisikilizwe tarehe 28/3/2025 Tarehe 28/3/2025 AKIDI: N.M. NTUMENGWA - M/kiti Bw. Hyera Bi. Hamida - Washauri Mleta maombi: Yupo Mjibu maombi: - 7. Wakili Nikomedi Qwahison/Yupo 2. Hayupo 3. Yupo Page. 10

Mdai: Naomba nipewe wito wa gezeti kumpelekea mdaiwa wa p/7/ kwani kwa sasa kulingana na kiapo cha wito yupo Dar es Salaam na kijijini haonekani. Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 28/3/2025 Wakili Nicomedi: Hatuna pingamizi. Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 28/3/2025 Mdaiwa wa 3: Sina pingamizi Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 28/3/2025 Baraza: Ni kweli mdaiwa wa 2 amepelekewe wito wa Baraza na tarehe 16/1/2025 lakini hakuonekana kijijini inasemekana yupo Dar es Salaam huyo apeleke we wito wa gazeti. Imesainiwa: N.M. Ntumengwa Mwenyekiti 28/3/2025 Tarehe 14/5/2025 AKIDI: M. MAKOMBE Bw. Hyera Bi. Hamida Bi. Sulle - Washauri Mleta maombi: yupo Mjibu maombi: Wapo/Adv Nicomedi Mjibu maombi: W apo/Adv Nicomedi Kwahhison Adv. Nicomedi: Mhe. Tunaomba kuleta pingamizi ya awali juu ya shauri hili. Amri: Shauri litajwe tarehe 23/3/2025 Tarehe 23/5/2025 Akidi: M.R. Makombe - M/kiti Bw. Hyera Bi. Sulle - Washauri Mleta maombi: - Yupo Mjibu maombi: - Yup?/Adv Nicomedi Page. 11

Amri: Shauri litatolewa uamuzi tarehe 3/6/2025 Tarehe 3/6/2025 AKIDI: M.R. MAKOMBE - M/Kiti Bw. Hyera Bi. Sulle - Washauri Mleta maombi: - Wapo Mjibu maombi: Adv Nicomedi Amri: Uamuzi huu umesomwa leo tarehe 3/6/2025 mbele ya wadaawa. Imesainiwa: M.R. MAKOMBE Mwenyekiti 03/6/2025” From the above record, there is no dispute that the case file passed through the hands of three Chairpersons. However, the record is silent as to which of the Chairpersons handled the parties’ case file and heard the objections, as it only reflects the Chairperson who prepared and delivered the decision. These proceedings raise procedural concerns touching on the parties’ right to be heard, thereby necessitating a closer examination of the record to ascertain whether there were a fair hearing and proper determination of the matter. In the circumstances, I find that there is an apparent illegality on the face of the record which warrants this Court’s intervention. Accordingly, the application is hereby granted. The applicant is granted thirty (30) days within which to file an appeal before this Court. In the circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs. Dated at MANYARA this 3rd of June 2026 . Page. 12

D. C KAMUZORA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT