Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
The applicant, the Commissioner General of the Tanzania Revenue Authority, filed Civil Application No. 66 of 2006 in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, seeking an extension of time to challenge a judgment/order of the High Court of Tanzania (Tribunal Application No. 8 of 2004), which had been decided by Senkoro, Chairman, on 13 September 2004. The matter came before a single Justice of Appeal, Rutakangwa, J.A., for hearing. The respondent, Parastatal Pensions Fund (P.P.F.), was represented by learned counsel, Mr. Maro. The applicant had been duly served with the notice of hearing on 25 June 2007, but neither the applicant nor its counsel or any duly authorised agent entered appearance on the hearing date.
Whether, given the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing despite due service of the notice of hearing, the Court should dismiss the application for extension of time for non-appearance under rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979.
The respondent, through Mr. Maro, argued that since the applicant had been duly served with the hearing notice but failed to appear, either in person or through counsel or an authorised agent, the application should be dismissed with costs pursuant to rule 58(1) of the Court Rules, 1979. The applicant did not appear and therefore advanced no arguments before the Court; the judgment records no submissions or explanation from the applicant regarding its absence.
The Court held that, as the applicant had failed to enter appearance for no apparent reason despite due service of the hearing notice, it was bound to grant the respondent's prayer for dismissal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for extension of time with costs, for non-appearance of the applicant, under rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979.
The decision illustrates the strict application by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania of rule 58(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979, which mandates dismissal of an application where the applicant, though duly served with notice of hearing, fails to appear without apparent cause. It underscores the procedural consequence of non-appearance for litigants before the Court, reaffirming that due service coupled with unexplained absence entitles the respondent to have the application dismissed with costs, without the Court proceeding to consider the substantive merits of the application.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.