AHMED FREIGHT LT VS SCANIA T LTD MISC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. COMMERCIAL APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2015 (Original Comm Case No. 124 of 2012) AHMED FREIGHT LIMITED........................ 1s t APPLICANT MUNIR ABDALLAH AHMED........................ 2nd APPLICANT VERSUS SCANIA TANZANIA LIMITED........................ RESPONDENT RULING Mansoor, J: Date of the Ruling 26™ June 2015 The respondent took an objection against the affidavit filed by the Applicant in support of the Chamber application stating that the affidavit does not distinguish between matters stated on information and matters deposed from the deponent’s own knowledge. The Counsel for the respondent submits that paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s affidavit states that the information deposed thereon were received from the 2nd applicant but the verification clause does not disclose that. To cement his arguments the Counsel referred me to the case of Salima Vuai vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies and 3 others (995) TLR 75, where the Justices o f the Court of Appeal had this to say: “....where an affidavit is made on information, it should not be acted upon by any Court unless the source o f information is specified. As nowhere in the affidavit, either as a whole or in any particular paragraph is stated that the facts deposed or any o f them, and which ones, are true to the deponents own knowledge, or as advised by his advocate or are true to his information and beliefs, the affidavit was defective and incompetent, ad was properly rejected by the chief Justice”. The Counsel prayed for the application to be struck out with costs. The Applicants filed the application for an extension o f time to set aside the exparte Judgement and Decree entered by the Court on 21 st March 2014 in Commercial Case No. 124 o f 2014, also for an order of setting aside that Judgement and Decree, and also for stay of execution pending the hearing of the application. The application was supported by three affidavits. The skeleton arguments filed by the respondent’s counsel did not state which among the three affidavits in support o f the application is defective. In any case, the source of information in paragraph 7 of Reginald Bernard Shirima’s affidavit is the information from his own knowledge as he has stated that he obtained the information deposed in that paragraph from perusing the court file, and paragraphs 7 o f the rests o f the affidavit are facts deposed based on the deponent’s information and belief, which information are from the deponent own knowledge and belief and this was properly verified in the verification clauses of each affidavit. I see nothing wrong in the affidavits filed in support o f the application, consequently, the preliminary objection is overruled as it was seriously misconceived. Preliminary objections overruled and dismissed with costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 26th day of JUNE, 2015 - A txlLA X h ANSOOR JUDGE 2 6 t h JUNE 2015 3