Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
Robert Mapesi, a former employee of the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the High Court Labour Division judgment delivered on 4 June 2020.
After the 2020 judgment, he initially filed a notice of appeal but later withdrew it and instead pursued a revision before the Court of Appeal, which was struck out.
He then returned to the High Court seeking enlargement of time, arguing that he had good reasons for the delay. TRA opposed the application, contending that the delay was unexplained and that the applicant had failed to follow the proper appellate procedure.
Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause to justify an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Whether the delay in filing the application had been satisfactorily explained.
Whether the applicant's choice of an incorrect procedural route justified the extension sought.
The court dismissed the application.
It held that the applicant failed to explain a critical seven-day period of delay and that every period of delay must be satisfactorily accounted for.
The court further held that pursuing an incorrect legal procedure before later seeking the correct remedy did not constitute sufficient cause for extending time.
The decision reaffirms that an applicant seeking extension of time must provide a full and satisfactory explanation for every period of delay.
It emphasizes that mistakes or uncertainty regarding the correct procedural route do not automatically amount to "good cause."
The case illustrates the Court's strict approach to procedural compliance and diligence in appellate litigation.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.