SHEMBILU SHEFAYA v OMARY ALLY 1992 TLR 245 (CA)

 

SHEMBILU SHEFAYA v OMARY ALLY 1992 TLR 245 (CA)

Court Court of Appeal of Tanzania - Tanga

Judge Ramadhani JA

20 August, 1992 D

Flynote

Civil Practice and Procedure - Court of Appeal Rules - Application for extension of

time to file a notice of appeal - Ill health without elaboration given as reason -

Whether sufficient reason. E

-Headnote

The applicant who lost an appeal in the High Court delayed to file his notice of appeal

within the prescribed 14 days period. Then he filed an application in the High Court

for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The application was dismissed because

"ill F health without elaboration cannot amount to a good reason...." Aggrieved by

the decision of the High Court the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal

Held: No sufficient reason has been given for the delay. G

Case Information

Application dismissed.

[zJDz]Judgment

Ramadhani, J.A.: The applicant, Shembilu Shefaya, was sued by the respondent,

Omari Ally, in Dochi Primary Court and won the case. So Omari appealed H

successfully to the District Court of Lushoto. Then Shembilu, the applicant, appealed

to the High Court but without success. He now wants to appeal to this Court.

The judgment of Mr. Shungu, Principal Resident Magistrate (Extended Jurisdiction)

was read over to the applicant in Lushoto District Court on 13/12/1989. However, the

14 I days in which he

1992 TLR p246

was to file his notice of appeal elapsed without his doing so. A

The applicant then filed an application in the High Court for extension of time to file

a notice of appeal. that application was dismissed by Mushi, J. because "ill health

without elaboration cannot amount to a good reason for extending time to file notice

of appeal ... after a delay of about five months." B

The applicant has come to this Court with the same prayer for extending time to file a

notice of appeal. His affidavit in support of this application does not provide the

elaboration which was wanting before Mushi, J. Even at the hearing he merely

insisted that the disease he had was not one for hospital treatment and that the local

doctors C could not be available to bear witness to that fact. Now, that, as properly

points out by the respondent in his counter-affidavit, could be alleged by any body

with impunity. For court work we need something more than excuses.

Then the applicant merely attacked Mushi, J. that the period which elapsed between

D the decision and the filing of the application was not five months but fifty days.

But fifty days is neither a short period nor excusable.

No sufficient reason has been given for the delay and as such I cannot see any reason

E for enlarging time. The application is dismissed with costs.

Application dismissed.

1992 TLR p246

F