The Hon Attorney General vs Electrics International Company limited and another, civil application No 489 of 2022.

This case is about 👇

The factual background of the matter is fairly long as it is gathered from the supporting affidavit. However, we will summarize it as 

follows: The applicant is the chief legal advisor of the Government. The 

2nd respondent, the successor of the then PPF is a public institution, established under the Public Service Social Security Fund Act No. 2 of 2018. 

On 6th November, 2008, the defunct PPF contracted the 1st respondent for the construction of some buildings for the Coliege of Informatics and Virtual Sciences of the University of Dodoma. However, during the implementation of the two contracts, there arose some variations resulting into additional costs, for steel structure elements and the construction of the parking lot. 

This gave rise to a dispute which the parties referred to an Arbitrator. Upon hearing of the matter, the Arbitrator ruled in favour of the 1st respondent and awarded it TZS 2,466,925,071 which comprised of TZS 1,593,256,912 being additional costs for the Food Court (Canteen), TZS 683,206,450 as additional costs for the IT Laboratory and TZS 461,709 being additional costs for the 

construction of the parking lot.

Applicant filed 28 days letter and says that application  for stay of execution is 60 days since opt to file extension of time for  revision. The court had this to say:

The foregoing apart, the central issue for our determination is whether the instant application is time barred. Very clearly, Rule 11(4) of the Rules sets a limitation period of fourteen days, within which to file 

applications of this nature as follows:

An application for stay of execution shall be made within fourteen days of service of the notice of execution on the applicant by the executing officer or from the date he is otherwise made aware o f the existence o f an application for execution.

(Emphasis added).

From the above quoted text, it is clear to us that, the applicant  had fourteen days to file the instant application.

At least, there are two main facts which are not disputed, for the determination of this application. One, that, the 1st respondent filed the respective amended application for execution on 6th June, 2022, as averred in paragraph 16 of the affidavit supporting this application and two, that, the instant application was filed on 19th August, 2022.

The accrual of fourteen days set under rule 11(4) of the Rules for the filing of an application for an order to stay execution is free of any ambiguity as noted above. Very unfortunately, the applicant herein did 

not tell when the respondent served him with the respective application for execution, or when he became aware of the existence of the intended execution.