Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
Geita Gold Mining Limited had filed Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2017 in the Court of Appeal against 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 certain 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, prior to filing the appeal on 28/4/2017, the applicant's advocate wrote to the Secretary of the Board requesting the Documents, but they were never supplied, even by the time the limitation period for filing the appeal was about to expire. Because the 14-day window under Rule 96(6) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 for including documents without leave had lapsed, the applicant brought this application under Rules 10 and 96(6) seeking leave to file a supplementary record of appeal out of time, incorporating the missing Documents once obtained.
Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for its delay in including the decree and exhibits in the record of appeal, warranting extension of time under Rules 10 and 96(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009; and whether it was appropriate to grant an extension of time to file a supplementary record of appeal containing documents which the applicant did not yet possess, given the risk that the extended period might lapse before the documents were actually supplied by the Board.
The applicant, through Mr. Kileo, argued that the delay was not attributable to its own fault but to the Board's failure to supply the decree and exhibits despite a timely written request made before the appeal was even filed. Counsel contended that Rule 96(6) could not be invoked without leave since the 14-day period for doing so had passed, necessitating the present application. When questioned by the Court on the practicality of granting extension for documents not yet in the applicant's possession, counsel candidly acknowledged the difficulty but assured the Court that the applicant would follow up with the Board's Secretary to promptly obtain the Documents, and proposed that 30 days from the ruling would be sufficient to file the supplementary record. The respondent, Commissioner General (TRA), did not file an affidavit in reply or any written response, and through Mr. Tito did not oppose the application, though counsel similarly noted the potential problem that any extended period might expire before the applicant actually received the Documents from the Board.
The Court, per Mwarija, J.A., held that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay, given that it had applied for the Documents from the Board before filing the appeal but had not been supplied with them despite the request. The Court acknowledged the practical concern—shared by both counsel—that granting extension of time for documents not yet in hand risked the extension lapsing before the Documents were obtained, but noted that it could not grant an indefinite period and had to fix a specific timeframe. Accepting the applicant's proposal, the Court granted the application for extension of time to file a supplementary record of appeal, ordering that it be filed within 30 days from the date of delivery of the ruling.
The ruling illustrates the Court of Appeal of Tanzania's approach to extension of time applications under Rules 10 and 96(6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009, particularly where delay stems from a tribunal or board's failure to supply necessary documents (such as decrees or exhibits) despite timely requests by the applicant. It confirms that such institutional delay in supplying required records can constitute sufficient cause for extension. The case also highlights the practical tension the Court navigates when granting extensions for documents not yet in an applicant's possession, affirming that while the Court cannot grant indefinite time, it may still grant a fixed, reasonable extension based on counsel's realistic estimate, even where effectiveness of the order depends on a third party's cooperation (here, the Board's Secretary) in supplying the needed materials.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.