Eliatrisha Ruben Pallangyo vs Godson Daniel Pallangyo and Others (Miscellaneous Land Appeal No. 11658 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8542 (19 December 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA ARUSHA SUB REGISTRY AT ARUSHA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPEAL NO. 11658 OF 2025 (Originating from Land Application No. 28 of 2020 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Arusha at Arusha) ELIATRISHA RUBEN PALLANGYO...........................................APPELLANT VERSUS GODSON DANIEL PALLANGYO ........................................ 1 st RESPONDENT LAZARO SIMON PALLANGYO.......................................... 2 nd RESPONDENT WILLIAM ABRAHAM NASSARI........................................ 3 rd RESPONDENT RULING 11 / 12 / 2025 & 19 / 12/2025 NDUMBARO, J The applicant herein is seeking to move this court under Section 41(2) of the Land Dispute Court at CP 216 RE 2019, extending time to file an appeal against the decision of the District Court Land Appeal No. 15534 of 2024. The gist of the matter is, the applicant being dissatisfied with the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal, filed this appeal before this court; before the hearing of the appeal, the respondents raised a preliminary objection on the point of law that the appeal is improper and not maintainable, PO was sustained and the matter was struck out on the 1 | P a g e reasons that necessary document, which is a copy of the judgment was not attached hence the matter was struck out for being incompetent before it. The applicant delayed in reinstituting the said appeal, hence this application. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant, where reasons for the delay are sometimes in October, the appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in prolonged medical treatment at Kalolen Hospital. That she was admitted to Kaloleni hospital on 22n d October 2024 and discharged on 25/10/20254, she attached a medical report to that effect. The respondents, on the other hand, strongly opposed the applicant's application through a counter affidavit of Godson Daniel Pallangyo, 1s t Respondent, Lazaro Simon Pallangyo, 2n d Respondent and William Abraham Nassari, 3rd Respondent. It was stated by the respondents that the applicants did not account for the delay. With regard to sickness, the counsel stated that the necessary document was only pleaded and not attached in the affidavit. When the matter was called on for hearing, the applicant enjoyed the legal services of Lectony L. Ngeseyan Advocates. The respondent, on 2 | P a g e the other hand, was self-represented. With leave of the court, the application was disposed of by way of written submissions. The applicants submitted that the applicant had encountered a motor vehicle accident three weeks before the ruling was delivered by this court on 13th November 2024, and she suffered severe injury and a fracture. Undergone medical treatment at Kaloleni, referring medical report attached to this application as Exhibit EP2. The applicant added that no one could assist her in filing the proper appeal. The applicant used to receive legal aid services from the Legal and Human Rights Centre, but she could not move till her condition was improved. She went to the Human and Legal Rights Centre for legal assistance; hence, she delayed filing a proper appeal. Submitted that, this matter was filed on 14 May 2025, when the time to file her appeal had already lapsed. The applicant submitted that illness is recognised by law as a sufficient cause for extension of time, provided it is supported by credible evidence, which in this case is supported by a medical report. Supporting the argument cited the case of Tanga Cement Company LTD Vs Jumanne D. Masagwa & Another Civil Application No. 6 of 2001, CAT, Tanzania. She further lamented that the delay in filing her appeal within time was not laxity, but rather due to sickness. The applicant urged the Court to grant the application. Contesting the application, initially faulted that the attachment claimed to have been annexed to the applicant's affidavit was not attached to the supplied copy of the affidavit, depriving their right to be heard. Arguing in opposition to the application, faulted that, the condition for grating extension of time laid down in the case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd v YWCA [2011] TZCA 4, which requires the applicant to account for all days of delay, show that the delay was not inordinate, demonstrate diligence, and where applicable, point to an illegality in the impugned decision. Argued in this matter, the applicant did not count days of delay; the ruling was delivered on 13 November 2024, and this application was filed on 20 May 2025 after a lapse of 180 days. Supported the argument with a number of cases, including Ridas Daniel Mollel vs. Nathan Simonson, Revision Application No. 43 of 2018 (reported); Vodacom Foundation vs. Commissioner General (TRA) Civil Application No. 107/20 of 2017, CAT at Dar es Salaam; Kauloi Kidokuma Longitengi vs Edward Longitengi and six Others, Misc. Land Application No. 26521; Sebastian Ndauia vs. Grace Kwamafa (Legal Personal Representative of Joshwa Rwamaafa), Civil Application No. 4 of 2014, CAT (unreported); and Ester Ruben vs. Mohamed Mashono, Misc. Civil Application No. 105 of 2020 (unreported) on page 7. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed for the application be dismissed with costs. The applicant did not file a rejoinder. Granting of extension is discretionary with the court; however, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. Having considered parties' submissions, the core issue before the Court is whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion to extend time, sufficient cause are well explained in the case of Lyamuya Construction (supra) including the need to account for every day of delay, the presence of illegality, and the absence of negligence. In this application, the applicant contends that she was involved in a motorcycle accident hence was sick. Faulted by the respondent that the medical report was not attached to deny his right to be heard. It is my view that, for sickness to be a sufficient reason, the same must be sufficiently proved. In this application, the applicant states that she was involved in a motorcycle accident and was admitted at Kalolen Hospital on 22/10/2024, and that she could not move till 20 May 2025. The medical report was attached to the applicant's affidavit. However, it was faulted by the applicant that the said medical report was not attached to their supplied copies, hence to deny their right of being heard; I have gone through the report it is apparent that the applicant encounter sickness, the said medical report was not challenged by respondent during submission. Am aware that respondent pleaded that, the report was not attached in their supplied copy of affidavit to deny the right to be heard. It is my view that since it was pleaded the respondent could take effort to demand the report when the matter was fixed for hearing since the said report was available in the court file, that was not done, hence could not blame that their right of being heard was denied. I am subscribe to the decision cited by the respondent in the case of Mwajuma Ally Yamee v. Victor Shikustrie Swai. In this case, my learned Sister Sarwatt, J had the following to say about sickness as a sufficient ground for extension of time; "This Court is aware that sickness is a good ground for an extension o f time if proved by the evidence establishing not only that the applicant was sick but also that his sickness happened at a time when he is required 6 | P a g e by the Law to take action in respect o f the matter which she seeks extension o f time for." That said, the medical report shows the applicant was sick three weeks before judgment was pronounced. The fact that it was not attached, in my view, since it was pleaded, the respondent could take the initiative and request a copy before or during the hearing, hence the respondent was not prejudiced. With due respect, I wish to state that at this juncture, what this court needs to pronounce is only on whether sufficient grounds for the extension have been advanced by the applicant. As a result, I am satisfied that the applicant has shown sufficient reasons to warrant an enlargement of time to file his appeal. In that regard, the intended appeal should be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date when this matter was initially fixed for ruling. D. D. NDUMBARO JUDGE 19/12/2025 7 | P a g e