Heriet Neema Ernest Munuo vs Cuthbert Ngarami Mushi (PC Civil Appeal No. 000022773 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8543 (19 December 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA ARUSHA SUB REGISTRY AT ARUSHA PC CIVIL APPEAL No. 000022773 OF 2025 (C/F Matrimonial Appeal No. 31578 of 2024 before the District Court of Arusha, originating from Matrimonial Cause No. 76 of 2024 before the Arusha Urban Primary Court). HERIET NEEMA ERNEST M UN UO......................................................APPELLANT VERSUS CUTHBERT NGARAMI MUSHI.........................................................RESPONDENT RULING 15/12/2025 & 19/12/2025 NDUMBARO, J I am compelled to compose this ruling following a preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent in their reply submission. The preliminary objection raised is on the point of law that;

1. That the suit is time-barred contrary to law Essentially, this is 3rd appeal, whereby the respondent herein filed an application for divorce and distribution of matrimonial property before the primary court, whereby the prayer was granted, and the appellant was ordered to maintain the children by paying school fees. On the distribution 1 | P a g e

of matrimonial property, it was ordered that the appellant herein be given a motor vehicle, make Isuzu, Bighorn with registration Number T474 BZQ; a residential house located at Philip and Flowers' business. The respondents were given a motor vehicle, make Mitsubishi Pajero, with registration Number T 831 AHN and a house under construction located at Shamsi Elerai. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the appellant herein appealed to the District Court of Arusha in Matrimonial Appeal No 000031578of 2024, where the District Court upheld the decision of the Primary Court. The appellant herein thought 2n d bite hence filed this appeal disputing the distribution of matrimonial properties. The appeal encountered a Preliminary objection to the effect that the matter is time-barred. Since the respondent raised the issue of jurisdiction of this court, practice demands that when there is an issue of jurisdiction, be determined first before the determination of the main claim, as it was stated in the case of Khaji Abubajar Athumani vs. Daudi Lyakugile TA D.C Aluminium & Another, Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2018 (CAT Mwanza) (unreported).

When the matter was called on for hearing, the plaintiff was represented by advocate Emanuel Kessy, and the defendant enjoyed legal services from advocate Petter P Njau. With leave of the court, the preliminary objection was disposed of by way of written submissions. Submitting in support of the preliminary objection, Mr Njau, counsel for the defendant, submitted that the suit is fatally defective for being time-barred contrary to section 80(2) of the law of the Marriage Act Cap 29 R.E. 2023. It was instituted after the lapse of the statutory time of 45 days. The decision on which this appeal is preferred was pronounced on 10 June 2025, and this appeal was filed on 08/09/2025. The appeal was filed 43 days after the lapse of time. Supported submission with the case of Biswadi Selenda Msuya Vs Attorney General and 3 others, Appeal. 4 of 2014, page 7 (Unreported) CAT. Counsel concluded that, appeal is time-barred, and the court lacks jurisdiction. Hence made a prayer that the Court uphold the preliminary objections and dismiss the suit with costs. Replying to the preliminary objections raised by both counsel for the defendant, Mr Kessy, counsel for the appellant argued, the appellant 3 | P a g e

delayed having a copy of the judgment, she was supplied with a copy after a lapse of 78 days. In rejoinder the respondent retaliated his submission in chief and argued that, the fact that she was supplied with copy of judgment after 78 days, argued there is no automatic exclusion, she ought to apply for application of extension of time, before filling this appeal; despite the fact she never tendered any document to prove that she was supplied with copy of judgment after lapse of 78 days. Argued that the appeal before this court is incompetent for contravening section 80(2) of the law of the Marriage Act Cap 29 R.E. 2023 Act. Having parties' rival submissions on PO, it is time for the court to consider if PO has merit. The main issue under contention is whether the suit is time-barred. The position of law in Section 80(2) of the law of the Marriage Act Cap 29 R.E. 2023, is that the suit ought to be filed within 45 days. It was the submission of the respondent that the matter was filed after a lapse of 43 days, after a limited time of 45 days to make an appeal filed out of time; hence, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain. On the 4 | P a g e

other hand, the appellant argued that she delayed having a copy of the judgment. The copy was supplied after a lapse of 78 days. It is my view that the appellant's argument that the delay in having a copy of the judgment, with the advancement of technology in the judiciary, where judgments are accessible through the electronic Case Management System, cannot be considered. It is further view of this court that, the judgment from the system which bears a barcode was a genuine and sufficient document for lodging her appeal, and there was no need to wait for another sealed copy of the judgment. Even if I were to consider the testimony that appellant delayed having a copy of the judgment, no evidence was tendered to show that he received the copy of the judgment after a lapse of 78 days. Hence make the defence fails below the standard of proof. That said, PO has merit, hence the appeal is dismissed. Due to the relationship of the parties, no cost is awarded. D. D. NDUMBARO JUDGE 19/12/2025