Court name
High Court of Tanzania

Helen Jacob vs Ramadhani Rajabu () [1994] TZHC 6 (13 April 1994);

Law report citations
1996 TLR 139 (TZHC)
Media neutral citation
[1994] TZHC 6

Mkude J: C
This is an application for extension of time to appeal against the order of the District Court of Knondoni refusing leave to appeal out of time. The applicant had lost the case in the Primary Court of Magomeni and failed to appeal against the decision of the Primary Court within the statutory thirty days. She applied for leave to appeal out of time but the D district court dismissed her application against the order of the district court and so she is now seeking leave to appeal out of time. In the course of her submissions the applicant was at pains to explain why she was late in appealing to the district court against the decision of the district court which refused her leave to appeal out of time, E even after prompting from the court.
In reply, Mr Lipiki, learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the application is incompetent as it has been made under the wrong provision. The chamber summons shows that the application is made under s 95 of the F Civil Procedure Code, while the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to primary courts. Mr Lipiki submitted that as the matter originated in the primary court the application should have been made under Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure (Appeals in Proceedings originating in Primary Courts) Rules 1964. He contended further that Rule 3 G contains mandatory requirements which an applicant for extension of time must comply with or else the application will be rejected as incompetent. He cited the case of Stanley Karama Mariki v Chihiyo Kisia w/o Nderingo (1) as authority for this.
Mr Lipiki further contended that even if the court should hold the application to be H competent the applicant has given no good reason for the delay. He submitted that, as shown in the counter-affidavit, the applicant sought justice outside the court while the case was pending in court and that is when she wasted time. Mr Lipiki pointed out that I the applicant had been to the Minister for Home Affairs and CCM at a time when she ought to have been pursuing

her appeal in the courts. She had even been to the Mfanyakazi Newspaper complaining A instead of coming to court and pursue her appeal. Mr Lipiki concluded by urging the court to dismiss the application with costs.
I respectfully agree with Mr Lipiki, learned counsel for the respondent, that this application is incompetent. Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code cited in the chamber B summons has no application in view of the provisions of s 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides as follows:
   `2. Subject to the express provisions of any written law, the provisions of the Code shall apply to all C proceedings in the High Court of the United Republic, Courts of resident magistrates and district courts.'
As pointed out by Mr Lipiki provision is made under Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure D (Appeals in Proceedings originating in Primary Courts) Rules, 1964. It follows that there is no occasion for invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code even if the Code were applicable. See Aero Helicopter (T) Ltd v F N Jansen (2) in which it was held that where there is a law making provision for exercise of E power by a court then inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked.
The applicant has not given any explanation for failing to appeal against the order of the district court in time. The fact that she was busy complaining to CCM and the Minister for Home Affairs is not sufficient reason for extending time. F
For the above reasons this application fails and I dismiss it with costs.

A