Sebastian Ngimbwa vs Lilian Kayombo (Misc. Civil Cause No. 13 of 1996) [1998] TZHC 2188 (19 June 1998)

IN ·rrrE HIGH COURT O:P T:.NZ/i.Nif, AT D/1.R ES S!i.J.,;/1.M MISC &CIVILoC.r,iJF3EoNO. 13 OF 1996 V:SRSTJS LILL'i.N Ict.YOHT:lO •• · ••• o •• • ~ ••• ;, ••• o •••• o •• ., .l<BSPONOEN1' RULING nunE.ZiU 't JO Mrs Gr-i.ma, learned counsel for the applicant hM filed this application seekin:; exte'nsfon ()f tinie within which to file the memor.ndum nf 3.ppeal. There are two affidavits one by the applic'nnt an·:l t,1e other depone·-1.. to by Mrs Gama for the applicant. Ace:,rdin1:; t(\ Mrs Gama, the delay to file the appaal was c3.used by her client' 13 absence from the country. That the npplic.:mt had tr-'lvelled to China to a.tten,:l merlicc.>,tion 2-"ld th::i.t in absence of her client she ha:.l no instructfons to procee·l with lorlgement of the a1,peal of the appeal. · Mrs Q3.nn submitte·. that annextures D 2 in partcular, which dil not form part ,;f her affirlavit, be examined :1y this c::mrtl That this will show th::it her client was out of this c.)untry at the relevant perior. Counsel Gnme. :tlso submitted that ( 1 .elay to file the aprecl wa.s c:11.1sed !,y previous counsel who ho.rid.led the matter in particul0.r the l[!,t( l'iiv.'?.je.sh:::, 1 s sickness anJ eventual death. Mrs K'.'l.to f,)r th.-0 resp0n'knt d:t.J not a,0 rce. She sub,nitted th?.t n,:-, good cause has been r.dvanced ~-1.s ti:-:. the ~elay. 'l'hat counsel for th0 applicc..nt has not t0lr-l court ,_..,hat :preventec1 t 1 .1e applictnt to 'filG the app,x:1.l e..S of 15/12/95 when the rulinr-: in the ap:;::,li.:;atfon to 3at ,'.':!side the expr.1.rte ju:~ent was delivered, I have had time to shidy this 0 ,ntter .9_n:l. in pnrticular fmnexture 1 C' collectively attached. tc ap-plicants affidnvit. frn .. '11.exture 'C 1 in,~icntes that applica.nt visited China on diverse d2.tes, the last exit heing 15/10/95. There is another stamp 1:,y the Immi;ro.tion Officer marked with the date 14/10/95. I am not sure 1 1hether this is the re entry date or not. Assuming that it was, ns there is no other subsequent dates, then the applicant. came back on 24/10/95; well before 15/12/95 when their al_Jplicatfon was dismissed. That nothinn; has been Jrme from 15/12/95 to date is net explained sufficiently l:y either the plua:linrs -:--r the submissions. Mrs Gama has trie.i to mm.y this court in favour Gf her submissions but I ;;i.m afraid her efforts are not backed up with ,sufficient documentary aviclence. ., t'-, \ :,; ..,,: ~ ~ ( rtbk ~ · . ..,..'.:·,- ./• ·i;;d //.. ' ., ,, ..........

. ' 2 . In the prcmis0s I rlecline to gr~'1t the aprlication cl.11cl clismiss :the applic::i.tion with costs Delivered before Mrs~ Gama an1 in the absence of Mrs Kato JUDGE 19/6/1998