Arusha. The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by former Rural Energy Agency (REA) employee< Mr Prosper Peter Msellem, upholding a High Court ruling that declined to extend time for filing judicial review proceedings challenging his dismissal after more than four years’ delay, which the court said was insufficiently explained.
In a judgment delivered on June 16, 2026, a panel of Court of Appeal justices Barke Sehel, Paul Kihwelo and Ubena Agatho, sitting in Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2025, ruled that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in rejecting Msellem’s application.
The decision is available on the Judiciary’s website.
Justice Agatho said the High Court was correct to refuse the application for extension of time to institute judicial review proceedings.
He noted that a general claim of ill health was insufficient to justify the delay without specific evidence showing the particular days on which the applicant was unable to act.
Mr Msellem, who previously served in various government institutions including REA, held positions such as Principal Statistician (Grade II) before later being appointed director of policy, research and planning after a transfer and subsequent return to the agency.
In 2017, he was issued with disciplinary charges, including dissemination of unauthorised information under applicable laws.
He was dismissed on January 26, 2018, after being found guilty.
He later appealed to the Public Service Commission (PSC), but his appeal was dismissed in May 2019 and the decision was subsequently upheld by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania in October the same year.
After exhausting internal avenues, Mr Msellem sought to file for judicial review but delayed for more than four years and 169 days, prompting him to apply for extension of time, which the High Court rejected for lack of satisfactory explanation.
He argued on appeal that the High Court failed to consider his claim that his right to be heard was violated during disciplinary proceedings, as well as his ill health, which he said contributed to the delay.
Court decision
After evaluating submissions from both parties, the Court of Appeal agreed with the government that the alleged violation of the right to be heard was not sufficiently particularised to justify extension of time and would require substantive determination at trial.
The court further held that decisions by REA and the Public Service Commission were not final for purposes of judicial review, as the President’s decision constituted the final administrative determination.
On the claim of ill health, the court stressed that the law requires an applicant to specify, with precision, each period of delay attributable to incapacity.
Justice Agatho said Mr Msellem failed to adequately explain several periods, including between October 1, 2019 and January 20, 2020.
“A general claim of ill health is not sufficient unless each day of delay is accounted for,” the court said.
The judges concluded that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion and found no reason to interfere with its decision.
“The appellant ought to have provided evidence-backed explanations indicating which days he was in hospital and which days he was engaged in other matters. We therefore find no merit in the appeal,” the court ruled. The court made no order as to costs.
