Ester Baruti vs Seith Senyael Ayo and another, civil Application no 514/17 of 2022

Leave was granted by the  same judge of the High Court. However, instead of appealing to the Court  within the extended time, the applicant again preferred this application for extension of time which application was lodged on 31st August, 2022.1 can  gather from the notice of motion and affidavit of the applicant, the purpose  of this application is for extension of time to challenge the refusal of  extension of time by Maghimbi, J.

Having such background, the reasons for delay are disclosed in the narrative affidavit of the applicant. I may conveniently summarize those  reasons into; mental illness, thus, transferred to Kigoma and Bukoba for treatment; mishandling of her case by her former learned advocates 

namely, Frank Chundu and Mgaya; and illegality of the tribunal’s decision.

At the outset, Mr. Rwegasira, learned advocate briefly submitted that,  soon after the ruling of the High Court refusing her extension of time, the advocate of the applicant lodged notice of appeal and requested for certified copies of ruling and drawn order, but did not request for 

proceedings. Hence was advised to write another letter for copies of proceedings. After receipt of those proceedings, she proceeded to apply for extension of time to apply for leave which was granted. Lastly the applicant 

was granted leave to appeal to this Court.

The court had this to say; However, the rule built on those precedents, I think was not meant  to be universally applicable even at the situation where the applicant 

approaches a wrong forum, or proper forum but for a wrong remedy, or apply the principle unreasonably. Even in a situation where the applicant is disinterested to the conclusion of the matter, thus, deliberately uses wrong  forum to buy time. In such a situation, technical delay cannot help.

 See Commissioner General of Tanzania Revenue Authority and Another vs. Urban J. Mtui, Civil Application No. 532/01 of 2021

(Unreported).As discussed above, in respect of this application, the principle of 

technical delay does not feature. Therefore, she cannot seek amnesty of the purported technical delay as she acted negligently. In other words, her changes of advocates cannot amount into technical delay. The issue of technical delay therefore is neither here nor there. 

See Dominic Ishengoma (Supra).The issue of illegality as alleged in the affidavit of the applicant, in our jurisdiction is as well developed. However, granting extension of time based on illegality, the illegality must be apparent on the face of the record with sufficient public importance. 

See Lyamuya Construction Company

Ltd (Supra) and Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence and National Service v. Dev ram Valambhia [1992] T.L.R 185, where this 

court maintained that the illegality or such point of law, must be that of sufficient importance and must also be apparent on the face of the record.

In respect to this application, the applicant tried to disclose the alleged illegalities in paragraph 25 of the supporting affidavit Yet I have read both, the ruling of the High Court and the judgement of the tribunal, frankly, there is no illegality apparent on the face of the record. I find that, the High Court judge exercised her discretionary powers correctly

In the final result and for the foregoing reasons, the application fails and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs for the respondent did not oppose the application.