Civil Appeal No. 620 of 2023
Geita Gold Mining Limited (the applicant) had instituted Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017 in the Court of Appeal of Tanzania on 28/4/2017, challenging the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2014, which itself arose from the Tax Revenue Appeals Board's decision in Tax Appeals Nos. 12 and 13 of 2012. When compiling the record of appeal, the applicant discovered that the decree issued by the Board and the exhibits tendered before it (the Documents) were missing from the copies supplied by the Board and had not been included in the record of appeal. On 20/3/2017, before filing the appeal, the applicant's advocate had already written to the Secretary of the Board requesting these Documents, but they had not been supplied by the time the limitation period for filing the appeal was about to expire, and indeed had still not been supplied at the time of this application. The applicant therefore filed the present application under Rules 10 and 96(6) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, seeking leave to file a supplementary record of appeal out of time to include the Documents once obtained.
(1) Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for the delay in including the Documents in the record of appeal, justifying an extension of time. (2) Whether it was proper for the Court to grant an extension of time to file a supplementary record of appeal containing documents that were not yet in the applicant's possession, given the risk that any fixed extended period might expire before the Documents were actually obtained from the Board.
The applicant, through Mr. Kileo, argued that the delay was not attributable to its own fault but resulted from the Board's failure to supply the decree and exhibits despite a timely request made on 20/3/2017, before the appeal was even filed on 28/3/2017. Counsel submitted that Rule 96(6) could not be invoked without leave of the Court because the 14-day window for including documents without leave had lapsed, hence the necessity of this application. When queried by the Court on the propriety of seeking an extension for documents not yet possessed, counsel acknowledged the risk that the extended period might expire before the Documents were obtained, but proposed that the applicant would follow up with the Board's Secretary and requested 30 days from the date of the ruling, submitting that this period would suffice to file the supplementary record. The respondent, Commissioner General (TRA), did not file any affidavit in reply or written submissions in response, and at the hearing, counsel for the respondent, Mr. Tito, did not oppose the application. He conceded, however, that since the Documents had not yet been received from the Board, there was a genuine risk that any granted extension period might lapse before the Documents were obtained, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the order.
The Court granted the application, extending time for the applicant to file a supplementary record of appeal within 30 days from the date of delivery of the ruling. The Court found that sufficient cause for the delay had been established, since the applicant had applied for the Documents from the Board on 20/3/2017, prior to filing the appeal on 28/3/2017, and the Board had failed to supply them despite this timely request. On the question of appropriateness of granting extension for documents not yet possessed, the Court reasoned that although it could not grant an indefinite period, it was appropriate to fix the extension based on the specific period proposed by the applicant's counsel—30 days—which he represented would be sufficient to obtain the Documents and prepare the supplementary record. As the application was unopposed and the proposed timeframe was reasonable, the Court adopted it as the basis for the extension.
The ruling illustrates the Court of Appeal of Tanzania's approach to applications for extension of time under Rules 10 and 96(6) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, particularly where the delay in compiling a complete record of appeal stems from a lower tribunal's or board's failure to timely supply essential documents despite a diligent and timely request by the appellant. It confirms that such institutional delay, evidenced by a request made before the expiry of the appeal filing period, constitutes sufficient cause justifying an extension. The case also demonstrates the Court's pragmatic approach to fixing a definite, workable period for compliance—based on counsel's own estimate—even where the documents sought to be included are not yet in the applicant's possession at the time the order is made, provided the applicant undertakes to pursue the outstanding documents diligently within that period.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.