Court name
Court of Appeal of Tanzania

Asmin Rashidi vs Boko Omari () [1997] TZCA 11 (16 May 1997);

Law report citations
1997 TLR 146 (TZCA)
Media neutral citation
[1997] TZCA 11

Mfalila JA:   H
This is an application to strike out the notice of appeal filed by the respondent for appealing against the ruling of Mapigano J dated 25 April 1996 refusing to issue a certificate or to certify a point of law to this Court, following his judgment dated 17 October 1995. Mapigano J ruled that there was no point of law involved for him to certify. Following this ruling, the respondent filed the notice of appeal the same day, that is on 25 April 1996. But since then the   I

respondent did nothing to prosecute the intended appeal, hence the applicant's   A submission that the said notice of appeal be struck out.
Before proceeding further, I wish to correct the record that the notice of appeal being impugned in this application relates to the ruling of Mapigano J dated 25 April 1996 and not his judgment dated 17 October 1995. Hence the notice of appeal filed by the respondent on 25 April 1996 is in time and not time barred as stated in the applicant's affidavit.   B
However, with regard to the lack of essential steps being taken, Mr Magesa, Counsel for the respondent, submitted that they did take essential steps in that they filed an application for extension of time within which to appeal against the ruling of Mapigaro J and that they did this as early as March 1997. The short   C answer to this with respect is that this is not an essential step envisaged in Rule 82. What is envisaged in that rule are steps which advance the hearing of the appeal not explanations for delays. In this particular case, one of the most essential steps was to apply for leave to appeal against the ruling of Mapigano J of   D 25 April 1996, for there was no right of appeal to this Court against that ruling. This was not done, all that was done was simply to apply for extension of time within which to appeal as if there was a right of appeal without leave.   E
The notice of appeal was filed on 25 April 1996 and nothing essential has been done to-date to prosecute the appeal not even as far as the record shows, applying for copy of records with copy to the applicant.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that the respondent has failed to take essential   F steps to prosecute the appeal for the last one year. This delay is more than inordinate.
I allow this application and order that the notice of appeal dated 25 April 1996 be and is hereby struck out with costs.   G
1997 TLR p148