19970904 TZHC Dar es Salaam

I ...._f . IN THE HIGH CctJRT OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAlvi :UISTRICT REGISTRY MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO.!:l5 OF 1995 l. ABDULRASUL GUL~1i1-IUSSEI1\ ·v-:'.:5.c\:•: • APPLICAN,rS 2 •.. M/S_ SHAl"lEZ ENTERI:'RISES :;:_,1f✓1LL'ED VERSUS TANZANIA ICE ANJ,7 SEE FOODS LI].\UTED RESPONDENT RULING ~~SSHI, J: Mre Majithia advocating for the applicants has,filed tl\J.1 application in terr:,s of Section 5 of the Appellate Jurisd~~-tion l Act J;@79 and. Rules 43(9) and 41+ of Tanzania Court of Appeal, Rules 0 He is asking for leave to ar•peal to the Court of Appeal on grounds the.t tLi:- --:: );_.:rt erred to diswiss the aPPl:·.cation for revision on prelir;1tnary grourili.s without consiti.ering the r.,eri ts oi the application. Further he · conte:nos that this court '?rr2d, after s·~riking out soi:ae of the I·c:,ragraphs of the affidavit, to conclude that there w&s no substant_ial affidavit left with which to consider the aPPl.i:)ation. To substantiate his :;rounds J.Vlr lYlaji thia was 0 of ,th2 view that in applications for revision one need not l;.>e so formal about it; that even a letter can r:1ove the court to call for t~e file for revisional purposes; that the court· ought to have taken the wider view·-.. and be !:loved by thE reasons advanced and . not the tech~nicali ties. He refer-red the court to Revisional Civil Cause No.25 of 1996 • -~acl.J.ata Mndolwa vs Quality Group Ltd where Bahati J, he:l,d · that 11 there is 110 requirefiient of attaching any ruling or order for revision because proceedings in revision are inf or~.ial and indeed even a letter' fro1,1 the. applicant could 1~1ove the court to ":xercise its .revisio.nal powers - -·-- ,.n , Mr. Luoga learned counsel for the Respondent held cont:r-8.ry view,. ne subr,,i tted that this application has not disclosed a point of law or fact.fit for the determinat.1,on by t.-_e court of Appeal; that the Court.has powers to strike ,. f(,.1 .. plea;ings found not to vonforr.1 to the law ana procedure. Mr. Luoga subi1i tted that the affidavit filed by Mr. Maji thj,,a has riot disclosed pcL.·lts ::if law ·.vcrthy ;~le deterw.ination bf tbe Court of Appealo .~He pra~;ed that',;the application be disfilissed with costs 0 " •.. /2 ... 2 Having considered the sub1.1issions by counsel I ai:, inclined to grant leave on the issue whether on exercise of its revisional jurisdiction,th2 court so exercising su~h powers should disregard procedural defects. As the decision by Bahati J, in the Nnqolwa case is not binding on this court, let the 1.,atter be ruled upon by the highest court of the land.4 Application for le~ve grantedG Costs be iP cause. A,_,,.. : ' ( JL,U~ 1,~;(1../\. Delivered before: A. G. BUBESHI JUDGE Majithia for Applicant 4/9/97 anq also holding brief for Luoga~