In his ruling, Justice Pomo said applicants seeking extension of time must provide convincing reasons explaining both the delay and why the court should exercise its discretion in their favour
Arusha. The High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division, has dismissed an application by Standard Chartered Bank Hong Kong Limited and Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad seeking more time to file a notice of appeal in a long-running dispute linked to Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL).
The application had been filed against IPTL, Pan African Power Solutions and VIP Engineering and Marketing Limited.
Delivering the ruling on May 5, 2026, High Court judge Musa Pomo said the banks had failed to provide sufficient grounds to justify the extension.
The matter arose from Commercial Application No 1361 of 2026, which is linked to earlier cases filed in 2017.
The banks were seeking leave to file a fresh notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal after their earlier appeal was struck out on procedural grounds.
According to court records, the dispute originates from a judgment issued by the High Court of Justice in England in November 2016 over a loan agreement involving the parties.
The banks later applied to the High Court of Tanzania to register the foreign judgment for enforcement in the country.
On February 9, 2017, the court granted the application and ordered the registration of the foreign judgment.
However, in a ruling delivered on August 26, 2020, the High Court stayed the registration, citing the existence of related proceedings in Tanzania that could result in conflicting decisions.
The banks subsequently filed Civil Appeal No 386 of 2022 at the Court of Appeal of Tanzania.
During the hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal was defective due to procedural irregularities in filing key documents.
On January 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld the objection and struck out the appeal.
Following the decision, the banks returned to the High Court seeking additional time to file a new notice of appeal under Section 11(1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.
Through their lawyers, the banks argued that the delay was not caused by negligence but by the ongoing legal process surrounding the earlier appeal.
They maintained that the previous appeal had been struck out on technical grounds rather than on the merits of the case.
The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the banks had failed to comply with legal procedures and had not adequately explained the delay.
In his ruling, Justice Pomo said applicants seeking extension of time must provide convincing reasons explaining both the delay and why the court should exercise its discretion in their favour.
The court found that the banks had failed to account adequately for every stage of the delay and had not shown sufficient diligence in pursuing their rights within the prescribed timeframe.
Justice Pomo also rejected the argument that the delay was “merely technical”, saying procedural lapses must still be properly explained and supported by evidence.
The court dismissed the application without ordering costs against either party, while stressing the importance of strict compliance with legal procedures, especially in international appeals and the registration of foreign judgments.
