Arusha. The Court of Appeal has dismissed Civil Appeal No. 329 of 2024 filed by three appellants led by the Chief Secretary (CS).
The court was satisfied that the High Court did not err in exercising its legal powers to extend time to the respondent to refile an application for judicial review.
The dispute arose from a High Court decision issued on April 3, 2024, in which the judge allowed the respondent’s application for a 14-day extension after finding that he had delayed filing by 23 days due to various administrative reasons.
The High Court found that the respondent demonstrated diligence and close follow-up in defending his rights, and therefore it would have been unjust to bar him from pursuing legal remedies.
Civil Appeal No. 329 of 2024 was filed by the Chief Secretary, the Executive Director of Siha District Council and the Attorney General against Pere Muganda.
The judgment dismissing the appeal was delivered on Friday, April 23, 2026, by a panel of three judges: Barke Sehel, Dr Paul Kihwelo and Prof Ubena Agatho.
Delivering the judgment, Dr Kihwelo said that after reviewing the proceedings and submissions from both sides, the court was satisfied that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in extending time for the respondent to refile the application for judicial review.
Appeal
The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and lodged an appeal, arguing that the High Court considered irrelevant matters, ignored key issues and misused its discretion.
They maintained that the 23-day delay was excessive and insufficiently explained, and therefore should not have been excused.
The State Attorney, representing the appellants, argued that for the court to grant an extension of time, there must be good and sufficient reasons as required under Section 14 of the Law of Limitation Act.
He contended that the respondent had failed to meet those conditions and that the High Court had therefore erred in its ruling.
In response, the respondent’s advocate defended the High Court’s decision, stating that his client had made genuine efforts to pursue his rights and had not remained idle.
He added that the delay was caused by difficulties in obtaining essential documents as well as administrative challenges beyond the respondent’s control.
Judges’ decision
After hearing both sides and reviewing the record, the Court of Appeal held that the central issue was whether the High Court had misused its discretion in granting the extension.
In its analysis, the court stated that Section 14 of the Law of Limitation Act grants courts wide discretion to extend time where sufficient cause is shown, and that no single standard applies to all cases.
The court emphasised that each case must be assessed on its own merits, taking into account factors such as the applicant’s efforts, promptness and the reasons for delay.
The judges found that the respondent had acted promptly after encountering challenges and had demonstrated diligence in pursuing his case.
The court also rejected the appellants’ argument that the 23-day delay was excessive, noting that the period was not unreasonable, particularly given the satisfactory explanation provided.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal held that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court’s decision, as it was consistent with the law and established principles.
It added that denying the respondent the opportunity to proceed with his case would have infringed his fundamental right to be heard.
“We are satisfied that the High Court judge exercised his discretion judiciously, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. We see no reason to interfere with that decision,” reads part of the judgment.
For these reasons, the court dismissed the appeal with costs, meaning the appellants will bear the costs of the case.
