Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
The applicant, Geita Gold Mining Limited, had filed Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2011 in the Court of Appeal on 19/6/2011, challenging the decision of the Tax Revenue Appeals Tribunal in Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2015, which itself arose from consolidated appeals before the Tax Revenue Appeals Board. On 25 May 2015, the Court had adjourned an earlier application pending clarity on the supply of documents requested by the applicant from the trial tribunal, as it was unable to consider the matter on merit at that time. The record did not show any change in circumstances regarding the supply of these documents. The applicant subsequently brought the present application seeking an extension of time to file supplementary records of appeal, attributing the delay to the late supply of the necessary documents by the tribunal, a fact that was not disputed.
Whether the applicant had shown good cause for its delay in filing the supplementary records of appeal, such as to justify the grant of an extension of time under the Court's discretion; and how to address the Court's concern about fixing a definite timeframe when granting such extensions.
The applicant, through its supporting affidavit and submissions, argued that the delay in filing the supplementary records was solely due to the late supply of relevant documents by the trial tribunal, a fact it claimed accounted for each day of the delay. The applicant did not appear at the hearing but had been duly served with summons. The respondent, represented by counsel, did not oppose the application and raised no objection to the prayers sought by the applicant, and did not seek costs.
The Court held that the applicant had shown good cause for the delay in filing the supplementary records of appeal, having accounted for each day of the delay through the undisputed fact of late supply of documents by the tribunal. Considering the respondent's lack of objection and the reasons advanced in the applicant's affidavit and submissions, the Court found no need to prolong the matter further. The Court granted the application for extension of time, directing the applicant to file the supplementary records within 14 days of obtaining the relevant documents (if not yet received) or within 14 days from the date of the order (if already supplied). No order as to costs was made, as none was sought by the respondent's counsel.
The ruling illustrates the Court of Appeal of Tanzania's approach to applications for extension of time, emphasising that good cause can be established where delay is attributable to a third party's (here, the tribunal's) failure to timeously supply necessary documents, provided each day of delay is accounted for. It also demonstrates the Court's practice of imposing a definite timeframe (14 days) when granting such extensions, addressing its own institutional concern about ensuring finality and clarity in orders extending time, rather than leaving compliance open-ended.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.