Abdallah Saidi vs Sultan Salugendo (PC Civil Appeal No 70 of 1987) [1991] TZHC 2108 (17 September 1991)

( , KYANDOJ: IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA il.T DAR ES SALAAM (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NJ 70 OF 1987 (From the decision of the District Court of IL,\Lii. AT Sii.uJR.A AV.L;;NUE IN CIVIL APPEAL Nv 47 JF 1986.) ABDALLAH SAIDI •••••••••••••.•••••• ·1.Pi.l!i1LANT versus SULTAN SALUGENDO ......... .' •••••••••• RESPONDENT • RULING The applicant ABDALA SAID wishes to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the judgment of this Court (Baha ti ,J,,} deli ve:»'ed on 0th March, 1900. He has filed an application for leave to ~~peal . ( for a certificate that a point of law is involved in the case, for leave to file a notice of intention to appeal "by such time as 'this .tloxiourable Court may deem fi t 11 and/or leave to appeaL as .ell nauer. · Tqe a1wl:i.,cation ana 1~, ""tne appl1ca1on; is supported by an affidavit• sworn by the a.,J..ian:tL., was ·presented h_ere for filing on 16th April, 1988. respondent SULTANI SALONGO, the has sworn a counter-affidavit and he opposes the applicant's application. At the commencement of the hearing ef the application before me Mr. ' .Ngasala far the respondent raised a preliminary point of objection t6 it, , which wa that it (the applioation is barred by kimitation. Mi.BYahama for the respondent replied by saying th2t he wa~.- laaving the matter ' .. to the court, I agree that in terms of the Cou.:-t of Appeal R.ules, 1979, .the application is time-barred It ought to havs been filed wihin74 days (ee Rules 43 (a), and 76 (2))Instead it was lolged 49 days from the date jf the Judgment against which it is sought to appeal. The application is barrd by limiation. Under s.11 (1) ~f the Appellate Jurisdiction hct, 1979, this courJ as ,, power to extend the time far making applications such s the insten,otle, "notwiths,tanding that the time for gtving n-::itice or making the applie,ation )la· already expired," H0wever, I couldLso if, on the material before me, I were satified that there are chances of the intended appeal succeding. I have read the judgment 0f Bahati,J., and there is nothing in it suggesting that a point of law is invulved fit for consideration by the Court of Appial. Also in V8lation to the application f0r exemption of {ees (applieation, to appeal as a pauper) I do not see anything to show hat the intended appeal is "not without reasonable possibility IDf success•:, in terms of RuJ.e 122 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Under the circumstances therefore i would be oly ~.irmality exercise to exterid the time_ for lJdging the applications UD.(.erkven if admitted to hearing. out -of time, they w.mld be dismisseA en mei ts •. /-. • I I . '

2 I Jphold therefore Mr. Ngasala 1 s preliminary yoint of objec1.ion to ., the applicant's application; I hold that the applicati0n.is barred by limitation and I dismiss it, with costs. DAR ES SALAAM 17th September, 1991.· Bwahama for the applicant. Ngasala for the resp~ndent. Ruling delivered. I .,/ \ ) f I tr1 r c" , U- L. A • .A, KY.ANDO JUDGE