20030304 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE IDGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAR ES SA.LAA.1\-i DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DAR ES-SALAAM CIVJL CASE NO. i23 OF 96 l . ... WANANCHI 0-L\RJNE PRObUCTS (T) LTD ...... PL.--\1:"-/Tlff'RESPO:\DF.YT I I OW:'-l'ERS OF MOTOR VESSELS .................... DEFE:'-iD.-\~T:'.-\ PPLiC.-\:'ff

VERSCS --- RlJLit~G KALEGEYA. J: \ ,i(,1,_, The ruling in this rila~ter \VJ.S reserved by my bte brother. ~:,:.1t"1ti. J,. ·, \vho unfortunately did not live to compose. it. Sadly. th-:: s,1me fak hc.:fdl another brother,· the late Kyando, J, tQ whom it \-vas subsequently re- . ~ assigned. The record has no~ been _re-assigned to me. (_ The background hcr.eof is that the Deft:nd:rnt~ d,~F:wlrc.J in appe:1r~111ce when the m:.1tter ~am~ b,~f~)re the late Katiti J. 1.1 11 i S 1 ·.:?_(:(i{) 1·1.)r . ' . meJi~1tiun. \Ir·.· El-\Lt:.1rnry for Pbinti!Ts applied. whid, 'l"Tlic1tiu1'.: :ind pr;iy~rs \v~.r~ g;;a~t~~i. r;ir di~rniss~1-1 ,)i: the ({""\linter .. 1..'L1im I[;,\ k:!\i..: I,, pm~-~ ·P t~{i tit i/f :/c !:1.i m:t e;s; G? n~: .ur:.1 I!: . .1 lhl~tq~,nt ! 1-2 :·111~·•.. ! l~ \:;ii 1~-'- ,' .:.:· .. ., )' . . . rct:, 1 rul \\.1s\h1!:,_,:r.r<'h1JLi:11..·1:J :n t·i1\1 .::· ,\:·,!1:s· Pli!i-nt1n·. ,.,, P 1 1111ti!l•, De;•,·., .. h·,,i l-~r' I , . , ._ l j· ...,, ~ :···.'· _. >.·, ;•1·,,.,,\. ...__ ., • • "• ~ ,( :,:, 1i:.: ~ ·. --. •. , ~ , hili ,·: ./. r ·r > ..-, ~ I ·r:,,1: ),_::n::'. ~.,:r·'. ed.· .·1·. :,-r ::.)°_~·:·;.(!·\ :.!~-· :::,_::,,::, ..'id -_.\,;'·,i ·-,· ... 2 ', . . "I .Ih.at this Ho.no_u::,ab_l_e_Court .b.e_p.Le.as.e_d':_/o_set J1side flX:f2Q.I..Le _:. judgment given bn 18'h day of July, 200i, ·out of time. anq. the case be heard a~d determined intei<parties on

me,~ir 2. Costs of the application be provided for : · · ~-1 ·- ·· · · ··· · · I :3·-.~-rtnr,·-ocher-rel-i-e•+ir·srv\;·h-ith-rh-e-Hono·urrtbfe~e-o-1trr~deem:s--fir~and~1- - :1 r - I 1 just to grant". I that one Mr. Hyera \.Vas for the Pbintiff while i\tlr. Elmaamry was for - Defendants, I am convinced that the entries were inadvertently made'.· \ -· because the rest of the reco'rds including submissions, show that one K,lr. \" - T.A. Hyera, Advocate, represented the Applicants/judgment - debtors (Defendants) while Mr. El-.tv1aamry represented the Respondents/Decree -:- • holder_s (Plaintiffs). _On that date ( l 5/6/200 l) the court ordered that arguments be made by way of v,:ritten submissio_ns in the fol lowing order:- " ... submissions bJ' Air. Hyeru on 9'7'_,()()J Reply by .\fr. El-:\-fcll1mry by 30 7 }()() I Rejoinder ~r llll_\-' by 6 8 '3()() I .\fentio11 16-S 20()/" ]"\,,-.: rec,1rd ,,t· I h. S )1l111 .. l!:1,,11:; , 1 th..:r, r·..::1d::. .,,, ' j : /"l,._1 : ) : /'•I : •• . , I 3 . .. ~------ ------------- -·- As regards fil;ing otwritten subm.issioris, the Applicants' \Vas• filed ·r ' on 13/7/200f as per exchequer Receipt No. 14050332; which was followed ,. 19 by the Respondents' on 19/7/?001 as per exchequer Receipt No. : - . ' ,_ ! . -· ·----- . . ... : ·1 :· . . ··.· .·· .. - - .• -- .. - - - ·. . - - . ~ - = -•-;··~··~------····· -~·-- -~~ ~--~~-

L4"Q.).0~~l-8c,-and-fi-naJly~Fejrft-cl•er~em~6f81~f}0-1=a-s7J"eteXc h ecpTer Re Ce l pt N 4- 14056672. The respective submissions. save for very few additions. simolv expanded the supporting and counter - affidavits, and \Vhich for clarity, r proceed to reproduce rather than rephrase them. '· I The chamber summons \Vas supported by an affidavit of one Fr:rncis Nkoka, which runs as follows:- "I. That I am the acting General /vfanager of the Defendant/Applicant conversant with the facts of rhis cnse. 1 That I had in'srn1l:ted K.R. HYER.-1 & CO .-1Di·oc.-1 TES ro defend this case on behalf of A!S T-IFICO 3 Thatfolfo,..i:ing the demise of .\Ir f:. R. f-f}I:.R.·1 tl1L· fl10n11ging partner of KR. HYER.·/ & CO .-1 DI DC.-1 TES. rlre mutkr 11't1s heing handled h_, one Celestine Shijg Kc1dc1gn .-!J.-rJ1..:<1t,· ' 1 Thor on n!ci.k:n•j, ,//,)\\ ·/1: 1 ,)Jl ,ilL' .'\SllL' I ' '/ :::, i' , ,'·· ~i-~·,;; Ir' ;n :·.',' / ,'. I ·1 t 1 Cele>~(/!'~c.' :S 1>1) _:',,)('/c.'r ·.\ ::i: ;.: /? !DI Oc .I l f II / 6. That since the Plaintiff had filed three (3) cases against ,\,f/S ----·~p... TAFJCO i.e. Civil cases 1'./o. I 23196, 220/96 and 221/96 i: .{ would.hCIVe bee;proper/or hi,;; to ..c'rfnso/i9at~d the cases. -·- - ---·· 7. Thar since TAFICO was specified by G.N. 322 pubf'ished on 25110/96 and is therefore under Presidential Parastatal Sec tor Reform Cqmm is s ion (PS.B..C). .~tJ' ho i" i ru.e.c.eiY.._.....,__--=-__. ._,_-=--.-~_:::-_-_-_- . _··=::::::::-·--·-------_-_-~---_-_.Alanager-,-the-:.co"tjs~Jidared-<:ase.:Sh0°ucbri-1~n&l•Nde:P-sRG-a~d----i,---- TAFICO as joint lpefendants, a cop),' of the G:V is hereby I attached.

8. That I could not enter appearance on I 8 1" .day of July, 2000 as 1 ' \ 'l] r.) .11()[ ,,.,...,\' .t:. s,..,; ..J - o,r:.,11 a•1d t,( <.: J(,!•::- ► (, J"" -,/,r-,:•i,,•·? .. ).,_, ...... c. ·.--if',... ... · . . . ...•, 1 J .... (.i I l• t..., ..... , ~~C~.-~. - .. I '- - . Advocate was due to the fact thar ,'vfr. Kadago has left AL'S K.R. HYER.A & QO ADVOC-4 TES 9. I swear this. a'ffidavit in support of orders sought in the Chamber Summdns. 1 O. JV/zat is' stated above in paragraphs 1 - IO inclusive is true to tlze best of my own knowledge. Sgn:

DEPONENT SJVORN by tlze Said FRANCIS NKOKA ) who is identified to me ) by T.A. HYERA w!ro is ) Sgn: personally knou:n to /ne ) this Ii" da_v of /H arc/1 2001 ) ~ f'"\EP() ..1:., ,,-F.::\'T"" lc.'ll?_,,-,lldSiS ,'v I . /' e ~/1,_:i I c_un di!.·,. h·,7L·,;~~· 1· :'i.'c' if,•_fl/ ( ·, ,,,,.-; ',· Tc.: :::,:1::.:1 -~ : r ,.... ; _,.: i 1,: ~ .·: r..:.: C ., :1 , • r .- t ; : :. ·, ·. ·- 1 ~ •. • ,_. • ~ • ....... r .r: · · _; ' ,·: , 1 • : .' • 1 I .• I' \'. 5 < ---·---- - . :?' '·._t-- 1 , 2. That I have handled this cdse fro"m the date I filed·this suit and therefore, I am fully conversant with the facts I c;im about to depone . 3_ --IIzaLat-:-th~ing:-ej[ th~p_pfication ' sl:iaJI raise a . ·--I----~~~-'--· I ~-t· I.. pre 1mirraryrp-oinr-rr1ahris1- L . ·+ ba d-~in"'/CIW";""-u-nment-61-iR0.-0J1:t,-.a)'1d------.;....i~- 1 , l therefore should be dismissed i,vith costs.

4. In the alternative bur without prejudice to rhe foregone assertion, as regards paragraph I to 3. the facts therein ore admicted.

5. That as regards para~raph 4, the applicant admits service bw wonders why appearanc~: 1rvas not made. It is a clear sign of negligence. On the part of the applicant and their .--J.c-lvocare.

6. That a regards paragraph 5, such a fact is neither here nor there. It does not exonerate attendance in court on the set date.

7. That as regards paragrciph. 6, the fact that Civil Cose 1\/0. 220196 and 22 l/96 werd not consolidated with Cit·il Cose :Vo. 1~2-Y96 n:as not cm exc.us-i:!for the }l1il ure of. r.h~ uppiic1.u u rn appear on the set date. '. • 8. That as regards paragroph .7 . ,1'111.!11 Ci\·// Case Su / ~3 1Hi \\"(1S Jilt:!d on s'" .\fo_v / 996, th..: sc1id GS fwd llcitha hc.'c.'11 published nor hod it com!! inti) _/;)rte. Ir \\'OS ruhl isl1tc·d I)}/ ~ 5 I 0-.. 96. . .__ j ') 7.flc/t ,-,0(7t·-\ L: ,::, \. f,.,_.,. .::-· \. /{)j/ •,. •· •,••>r l. u ·\ , (fl',. , ·.•,·11//\ , .. ,. •,;. ;:·,;,·;\ !l':/1,.·,;f,.· 1 - L . 1_ , 1 , ~. 1 , 1 .• 'f],((7 .•,1 • • •It ........ ::,t.: JI l. {.. :JI •i•,J {) l1-.,•/•,)_*•_;., , , , .. f , j / •,,/:• ,;,,~, \ I.',..--.,,.•. • •,•• • •'}'• • ',•' .. , • , • , , 1• I i II r l • , { I l , ',, n I. . . "r I, I . I I. ,. "l . ( 1,,.I, l (.. ,. . . P. • : . ., , ·.' : ,' _,,. ., ·.: ,: t ''_, ._.: .' ' J .' :.._ • .,. ' : ' ; : '··.: , • I • l j ( C l I ,i :"' • I\....' •' • C. ' .... j ' • • • ' - ·-,. -;.-., I . ' .. , . ' L.t\ h_\_lft:' ,_;r t:iL - t)t',l f r I 'lL' ......../~! .\_ ~: 1:: ' ... \. ,'.''.'·.· . • .... ,._ ·1•• .• ., ... .... • •.• . '"'. .• . • ' .• ' .i.:.-' ' I 6 --~---'--cc-- ------------~ ----- ---- --------~~-'-- What is stated in paragraphs 1 to 10 is true to· th~ . best of my . knowledge. AFFIRMED by the said SAID H. j ___ EL-M~...A.MR Y who is kn own to _J ;_ Sgn __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ BEFORE iHE SGN CO,HJIISSI01vE FOR 0.-! TJIS" rcmphusis m1ne.1 The above said, I regret to say that I cannot determine the application on merits because oB the• fla'vvs exhibited both in the supporting affidavit and the filing manner ~f the submissions in support of the application.

0. XIII, Rule 2 of The Civil Procedure Code provides:- "1 Every application to tl11:; court made under this Codt' s/11:II. unless othen~ ise provided, be 1nade by a chan1ber summons supported by affidavit: Provided t!rat rlu:: court may 1d1<!re it considers fit to (In ,·, >. entertain on upp!ication mode oruN.J.,. or. 11'11L..,-c' oil t 11L· rurflc:s j: {I) c1 SIU{ d)IISt:.'l'lt /,) rlii:! r)J"(!c'/' (/flf7ilc'd . . {I) hc•i11·~ 111,illc· . :,._ J.>lL'lr1<)r(]l11.llt'li :.1 1 \\'l"t.lil,'•:: ,·t·:: 1c·ci :,,_ ,:/! {/:',:_·· / :l/"~ .... ._· 1 1 , ) I ' · ...' I r / ; I ; I j L:~:\·OL'i..i{L~S. ,~r ;n ;:i .... ,l 1.i!J?c.'.1· n:, ,,/\_ ,;·· n:l,,_·, /·:~· ,i/" ... I ' i If J' ' ,I /(,\• ' 1:1g . . I'c <T ' -._/, { ':,l,J J I, 1 ,_._.I, It. ~ -• 1· ' • ,. ~_·'"· • , ' ' I • , - -~~, · · : ,-. r..., ' : , ' • [ 1 :11 ) } ' ') ~ ,' ,' '...' . ' • l .• • ' , ' ,' , I ' , ... ( ~ i 7 -- - ~'-- -- -------- --In--th:i-s~ase the--aflpl-ie-an-t-has--eh es-e n--t0--e 0me-by-way- o f -ch am-her--------:-. -- -- -- - ' . . : ~ . '.' summons.,,,_ piat means,. the S<Une has to be supported by an. affidavit. Unfortunately however, the document signed by one Fra.ncis Nkoka purporting to be one, is legallv:r1ot an affidavit worth the title. V/hv? _It · ' · -------- -- -- ------- --- ~ - - ·--· -- - - - --- ------ - ----1----------- ----- ------ -· -- ------ ------ ----- -- -- - -- --- .. .. ----

- - -- ---- - --1------ - cOnt,iins 'ari~iricural5le-~creTect ·1s ·clearlv d"ispTavea in tfie quotea~oocf~-- ·: -~- i · · · I above. The ju rat is defective in that it does not state the place where the affidavit was sworn. This violates S. 8 of the Notaries Public and Commi-ssinner for Oaths Ordin:rncc. Cao l :2 which st::ites . .· . l . i' "Every ,-, i\/otary Public \ a_nd . Commissioner for Oath before ivhom \ . an_v qath or affidavz't is Jaken or made under this Ordinance shall state truly in the jurat of attestation at what place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made." (emphasis mine) ' And this rhymes with a,definition of what a ju rat is. The Black's Law Dictionary defines the same as follows:- "C crrij1cate of ojjicer or person before 11:/rom 1i-riring 11·os sH· 1Jn1 to In common use term is employed ro designafc' L'c'rtU1cL1,,_· 1Jt competent odministt?ring oj_lic.:2r rhur tf1L·,~,vril!11g \\'USS\\ rl/'/1 /1) i,\ L; '--• person 11·/io 'ilgtZL'tl 1r. The: L·lt1u.se ,1 riuc:n or rh.: lrJor o(on c1tird,l\'!i the C()mr.1is,;i,)ners for Cbtfas bef'-,re \\ h,-ir,1 -1tliJ,1\ it:> ~1r:: ~ case ~1:'' ,,, E~ \I ~l~,r I liod D,osc,1 f; i' \ lu:.,· .. 1:-~ ,-,i· ~ .... ~ ~(f::?cl \:;. t~i~ r~~,.::~-.:~~~:--.: ~c:..:~:.·. . 1.:~~ ·.~:::s-.2 ,-., 'i I I j - the operations·of the· Comrn.issione~ for·O-atlrs and-nut-ne-cessari-l·y--where - ;:t~ --~ the oath took

place. ; --- -~-- - .. As--regar~-c-en-se~€s ~-"'----~~-....a,.a_·,----~:-- . = .. I - ....· - ~ - - - - . . - . of y1ch a defect_ . . . -· I \V~- .. -- ~av_e_ ~~~ guidarice of_the Court of Appeal <l9cision in Civil Application No~:r3of,--..-~-=,-= - 2002, D.B. Shapriya & Vo. Ltd versus Bush International B. V (unreported) wherein Ramadhani, J.A, put it in a nutshell in the "The section categorica~ly provides that the place at ,vhich cm oath is taken has to be s/1own in the Jura( The requirement is mandatory: Notary Pub/id and Cummissioners for Oaths "shall state truly in the ji,rar of attestation at H-'hat place and what date · the oath or affidavit is tciken or mcide. " The use of the ,vord "truly" in my considered ¢pinion underscores the need to fo/101,v 1 the fetter of the provision.·~ In effect thereof. there is' ::tn incompl~te applic1ti()n h.::fore this court - a chamber summons without an affidLlvit! l should hastily adJ tW\) ,'n1-:)rc ,,hserv;:ition:-;_ ,,nc; the :·ck:Tcd t,) ckt~ct 1-:-; suffered ~1lso r,:,. the f:uq~,,ncJ C(1 t1ntcr-_1:·:--,,!.'.-.. it :~:- '.\,· L'.· I \1:umr:, :1s \ividly sh0'-'-11 h~ 1t~1c -:1u:,uti\,n ,1\:,,,1.-.: l ·.\,,_ .::'.'!-- :~--•·;· j I 9 .. 0 . - -. . . . ' '. ---. \~ "Confirmation oj•correctness, truth, or authenticit}'', by affidavit, oath, or deposition. " ----------l - - --------- -------------- ---·------·-···-·-- - - - - - - ; - -

- - --1 --=-- . .,, ....c..J--.:...;....:..---=:0.....=.......:=~~-'----=·. ·:-··----~="='-·•-"'""=-- -•---••=--"'-"-~-~--:·-- -='=~•=-,~~"~------"-~--~~~- . . . . ·- . - -----·--1··. --~ - ! I The same author explains the grounds and importance of verification, "Affidavit of rruth of matter srate.d and objecr of verijzccuion is ro assure good faith in averments br statements of a person. ·· C, Now, here we are not talking of a verification outside the affidavit. \Ve are talking of verification of what is contained in the affid;ivit. Invariably, each affidavit must contain a verification clause. \Vhy? The deponent must show the source of the· facts deponed. And, indeed this is envisaged under the law.

0. XIX Ru!~ 3, CPC provides, "3 (I) .-t)J1dm·irs shall b2 conj1ned ro such /ocrs os rhe deponenr ,s ablc of his o,vn knoH·ledgc: ro pr, 1 \·,_· excepr 011 inrc:rlocuron uppl ications. rlr/ f"'-, starenNnfs (~(his-hi:lic/n1c1_\ ti'e 1.hlmirr.::J I '"'I' 1! ·- .... ~ . ,, ' ' . , 1,,er1ticJt1c1 n cl;ius~s immed1Jt~iy t"1.:.ill,J'·'-·n~ the last :."'.!r::·;~•;:-;- ··\ ERifi!(. \TIO'.-- P-·:: ~'..c·.:~:::: \S :~~:-. ;;..:,1.<:.?·i _1:--.~'. '.J' ~: a 3.__:~~2r:?1~ Qr:1ct l((' h1..1 \ \ t'- :.,.. 3-.?~-:---.-:- : 1 ' 1... ~ ........ - --~:..:-:--. ·. : _ ' . . • f - • ,..:, .. . .:.... .... ~ ,- -. - . 1 ··' ....... •. paragraph, as the two affidavits indicate, while some don't even bother to date them let alone signing them. Ali these categories violate the law. The jurat should not be confused with a verification clause. Thus, a , -··-·--•-. -· --- --------····----·---•i---·••·· deponent. I should also add that even if the application was proper, I \.vould have proceeded to consider it wfrhout making reference tu the.: \ Applicant's written submissions. Why? I quoted the orders issued by the court on 15/6/2001 and 16/8/2001, purposely. The Applicant filed the submission out of time and without le::i.ve. It is true that the applicant \.Vas late by a mere five days (the filing was made on 13/7/2001 instead of 9/7/2001 as ordered) but failure to act withir:i the time fixed is

failure regardless of the extent of the delay. As the submission was filed outside the time prescribed and as no leave fo1· the ti I ing it out of ti me.: was sought and secured. legally there is no applicant's submission on record. Parties and Counsel should ah-vays know that mere receipt of a ducumcnt by the Court Registry staff or mere pJ.yment of tiling tees d\)C:~ rwt lc::;all> pl~1(c '). the document on record . , ... , j I I r ll ~ - - - - - - - ·- -~'---- "')t' ,...-:-·r ,. · . : . Delivered in the.pres·ence of ivfr. EI-Ma.afu.ry. ~:~~# ~ 1 ': L.B. KALEGEY A --- -· -~-8-0-G £1 Order: The Defendants to be notified of the Ruling. L.B. KA.LEGEY.-\

JUDGE 4/3/2003 .......... ········ ··.•· .. Re~str:ir Commercial Court Dated __ W37w::,_ ___ L '-' ' <::). ~ i f , j I r I~ t I 'I· " I I,