Wakilii

Managing Editor Mseto and Another v Attorney General, Republic of Tanzania (Application 3 of 2019; Application 4 of 2019)

East African Court of Justice · [2020] EACJ 7 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications: Application No. 3 to strike out Notice of Appeal; Application No. 4 for extension of time to file appeal out of time
Decision
Notice of Appeal struck out; Respondent deemed to have withdrawn the appeal

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court denied the Respondent's application for extension of time to lodge an appeal out of time and struck out the Notice of Appeal. The Court held that the Respondent failed to establish sufficient reason for extension of time under Rule 4 of the EACJ Rules. The reorganisation of the Attorney General's Office, which occurred more than four months before the judgment and five months before the Notice of Appeal was filed, did not explain why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed 30-day period. The Court found dilatoriness where the application for extension was filed more than a year after the Notice of Appeal. Under Rule 82(a), failure to institute an appeal within the prescribed time results in deemed withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal.

Outcome

Notice of Appeal struck out; Respondent deemed to have withdrawn the appeal

Facts

The Applicants, Managing Editor Mseto and Hali Halisi Publishers Ltd, successfully challenged before the First Instance Division of the EACJ a ministerial order suspending publication of the Mseto Newspaper for 36 months from 10th August 2016. Judgment was entered in their favour on 21st June 2018. The Respondent, Attorney General of Tanzania, filed a Notice of Appeal on 19th July 2018 but failed to lodge the appeal within the prescribed 30 days under Rule 86(1). The Applicants filed Application No. 3 of 2019 to strike out the Notice of Appeal. The Respondent filed Application No. 4 of 2019 for extension of time, citing reorganisation of the Attorney General's Office under Government Notice No. 48 of 2018 (published 13th February 2018), which created the Office of the Solicitor General to handle civil litigation. The Respondent claimed the new office was not fully staffed at the relevant time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Notice of Appeal filed on 19th July 2018 by the Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania should be struck out or time should be extended to file the appeal out of time.
  2. What reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled to.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to lodge an appeal out of time denied.
  • Notice of Appeal dated and lodged 19th July 2018 struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Sufficient Reason — Test for Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Under Rule 4 of the EACJ Rules of Procedure, a court may extend time for sufficient reason, exercising its discretion judiciously. In determining whether sufficient reason exists, the court should consider not only the applicant's inability or failure to take essential procedural steps in time, but also any other considerations that might impel a court of justice to excuse a procedural lapse and incline to a hearing on the merits, including the promptitude of the remedial application, whether jurisdiction or legality is in issue, breach of natural justice, public importance, and prejudice to either party.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Administrative Reorganisation — Insufficient Reason Where Reorganisation Predates Judgment
Where a government office reorganisation occurred more than four months before the judgment under appeal and the party successfully filed a Notice of Appeal on time five months after the reorganisation, the reorganisation does not constitute sufficient reason for failure to file the appeal itself within the prescribed time, particularly where the application for extension is filed more than a year after the Notice of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Affidavits — Statements on Oath Constitute Evidence
Statements made on oath in an affidavit are evidence and it is improper to treat them as mere statements or allegations which require evidential proof as would be the case if they had been in a pleading.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Deemed Withdrawal — Effect of Failure to Institute Appeal Within Prescribed Time
Under Rule 82(a) of the EACJ Rules of Procedure, if a party who has lodged a notice of appeal fails to institute an appeal within the prescribed time, he shall be deemed to have withdrawn his notice of appeal and shall, unless the court orders otherwise, be liable to pay the costs of any persons on whom the notice of appeal was served arising from that failure.

Cases cited (3)

  • The Secretary General of the East African Community Versus Sitenda Sebalu EALS Law Digest (2011-2013) page 147
  • Prof. Anyang Nyongo and 10 Others v Attorney General of Kenya (Application No. 2 of 2010)
  • Godfrey Magezi v National Medical Stores (Appeal No. 02 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Managing Editor Mseto and Another v Attorney General, Republic of Tanzania (Application 3 of 2019; Application 4 of 2019) [2020] EACJ 7 (2 June 2020)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.