CIVIL APPLICATION NO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 287 OF 2025 AMINA ABDALLAH........................................................................ APPLICANT

VERSUS HALIFA ATHUMANI MAGINA............................................. 1st RESPONDENT AHMED HALIFA MAGINA as administrator of the estate of Mariam Said Benta (deceased)..............................2nd RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution of the Decree of High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam (Sub-registry) at Dar es Salaam) (Mruma. 3.) dated the 8thday of February, 2023 in Matrimonial Cause No. 3 of 2018

RULING 4th & 5th March, 2025 AGATHO. J.A.: This application was preferred under the provisions of rules 11(3), 11(4), 11(5) (a), and (b), 11(6), 11(7) (a), (b),(C) and (d) and 48(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 G.N. No. 368 of 2009 as amended by G.N. No.344 of 2019. The applicant brought the application by way of a Notice of Motion supported by an affidavit. The respondents resisted the application by filing their affidavits in reply. Moreover, the 1st respondent filed a notice of Preliminary Objections (POs). When the matter came for hearing on 4th March 2025, the parties' counsel appeared via video conference from Dar es Salaam. Whereas Mr. Rajabu Mrindoko appeared for the applicant, Mr. Walter Shayo stood for the 1st respondent and Mr. John Kambo represented the 2nd respondent. To begin with, Mr. Mrindoko informed the court that they effected personal service of notice of motion upon the 2nd respondent through his advocate (John Kambo) on 27th February 2025 and through publication in the newspapers, Mwananchi and Nipashe dated 28th February 2025. To that effect, the 2nd respondent filed an affidavit in reply on 28th February 2025 which was served upon the applicant on 3rd March 2025. On his side, Mr. Shayo told the court that he filed the affidavit in reply on 28th February 2025, and a copy was served upon the applicant on the same date. He further told the

court that they have filed notice of PO on two points of law: (1) that the Court has no jurisdiction entertaining the matter as the same is out of time, and (2) that the application is bad in law for being supported by an incurably defective affidavit. When it was his turn, Mr Mrindoko confirmed that they have been served with a copy of notice of PO since Friday last week through his mobile phone. That being said, and to expedite the matter, the Court directed that the POs to be heard simultaneously with the main application. The 1st respondent's counsel began his submission with the first PO that there was an application for execution against the same decree which is subject of this matter which was filed on 31st October 2023. That was execution No. 105 of 2023 at High Court at Dar es Salaam sub-registry. The applicant in that matter was the 1st judgment debtor (the applicant in the matter at hand) and was represented by advocate Mrindoko. He went on submitting that the applicant never filed an application for stay of execution within the period or time provided by rule (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring the judgment debtor to seek stay of execution of decree within 14 days from the date of service of notice of execution. It was Mr. Shayo's submission that from proceedings of the High Court in execution No. 105 of 2023 attached in their affidavit in reply as

annexture HM-2, they show that the advocate for the applicant has been appearing from the date of 7th March 2024 in that execution until the last date when the ruling was delivered on 30th August 2024. In that ruling the High Court granted the prayers of the decree holder (1st respondent herein) that of attachment and sale of the matrimonial property located at Kondoa according to the shares in the decree. From the said proceedings, it is quite clear that the execution of the decree was filed in October 2023 and 3 there has never been an application for stay that was filed within 14 days from the date of service of notice of execution. It was Mr. Shayo's prayer that the court find this application to be time-barred and be pleased to dismiss it with costs. The second PO is that the application (notice of motion) is bad in law for being supported by the incurably defective affidavit for contravening rule 18 of the Court of Appeal rules. This rule requires that every document before the Court to be endorsed by the Deputy Registrar or any other officer showing the date and time when it was lodged. Mr. Shayo submitted that the affidavit supporting the application is not just not endorsed but it is also incurably defective because it does not even contain the clause lodged or presented for filing this....of...2025 so as the Deputy Registrar or any officer assigned could endorse with

date and sig n a tu re s per rule 18 of the Rules. It is the 1st respondent's prayer that the court find the affidavit incurably defective. He then cited the case of Arbogast C. Warioba v National Insurance Cooperation (T) Limited and Consolidated Holdings Corporation, Civil Application No. 24 of 2011 CAT, at pages 8 second paragraph where the Court held that a legally defective affidavit cannot support a Notice of Motion. In the same paragraph, the court held that having concluded the affidavit was defective then the Notice of Motion cannot stand. With that Mr. Shayo beseeched the court to hold that the incurably defective affidavit crumbles with the Notice of Motion. Mr. Mrindoko responded to the POs, starting with the 1st objection, he argued that the PO is misleading and misconceived. He continued to submit that the present application was filed in this Court after being served with summons to appear for execution in Misc. Application No. 578 of 2025 before High Court at Dar es Salaam sub-registry and the same is attached as annexture AB-4 to the affidavit in support of application. And the application of execution was filed by advocate Shayo, and they are seeking an eviction order against the applicant herein on the property located on plot 776 Block 45 C Kijitonyama Dar es Salaam where the applicant resides. Mr. Mrindoko submitted that the application which counsel Shayo

was referring to, was an application filed earlier in 2023, and it was in respect of the house/commercial building located at Kondoa plot No. 72 block Y, which is distinct from the present property located at Kijitonyama Dar es Salaam, which the applicant seeks an order for stay of execution. It was his view that the PO is misleading because these are two distinct applications for execution. He added to his submission that the present application was filed timely after the applicant being served with notice of execution (second application) on 5th February 2025. This application was filed on 13th February 2025. Hence within time. On that basis he implored the court to overrule the PO. Regarding the second PO that the affidavit is incurably defective for failure to include the endorsement by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar at the foot of the affidavit, Mr. Mrindoko submitted that this PO has no merit. He went on submitting that the applications before this Court are governed by the Rules and must be filed according to the format provided by the Rules. According to him, the Rules require the application to be brought by way of Notice of Motion of and supported by an affidavit and shall cite specific rules under which it is brought and state the grounds for relief sought. This form is form A in the first schedule. It is for Notice of Motion. He contended that there is nowhere in

this form requiring the affidavit to show that it was lodged in the registry, to appear in the Notice of Motion. The form is clear on page 91 of the Rules. Mr. Mrindoko argued further that this application was endorsed by the Registrar in the Notice of Motion. There is no requirement that it should be endorsed in the affidavit. It was his view that he does not see where the applicant has contravened the procedure in the Rules on the Notice of Motion. As salvage, the learned counsel submitted that if the Court finds there is defect in the affidavit, then the same is not fatal because first, it does not touch on what is required in the affidavit. Second, the same is curable under Section 3 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act [Cap 141 R.E. 2019] herein cited as AJA, under overriding objective principle because it does not go to the root of the affidavit itself. It was his view that the same can also be cured by inserting the place and date of lodging the affidavit. As for Arbogast Warioba's case (supra) cited by Mr. Shayo, it was the view of Mrindoko that the same is irrelevant because it was based on a defective verification clause. That, the paragraph was verified but its source of information was not disclosed. Moreover, the decision was given in 2012 prior to overriding objective. Affidavits can now be amended on issues that do not go to the root of the matter. Mr. Mrindoko

referred to the case of Sanyau Service Station Limited v BP Tanzania Limited, Misc. Application No. 185/17 of 2019 CAT where this Court invoked overriding objective to correct defect in verification clause of the affidavit and determined the application on merit. The Court allowed amendment to insert verification clause and overruled.the objection. On that basis, Mrindoko prayed that the PO be overruled, and the application be heard and determined on merit. Mr. Shayo briefly rejoined on the first objection that he reiterated their submission in chief. He added that the application at hand for stay is subject of the same decree. Also, the same decree is subject of appeal in this court. As for the second PO Mr. Shayo rejoined that the application at hand was brought by notice of motion and supported by an affidavit. These are two documents. The notice of motion contains prayers and affidavit contain facts. Shayo reiterated the rule 18, and stressed that Notice of Motion and the affidavit are different documents and the notice of motion was endorsed and the affidavit has not been endorsed by the Registrar. He submitted that both documents need to be endorsed as per rule 18 of the Rules. Reacting to the citating of Section 3 of the ADA on overriding objection, Mr. Shayo submitted that even the cited case of BP Tanzania Limited clearly stated that overring objective cannot be used

to overlook the procedures set by the law. The wording used in rule 18 of the Rules is "shall" which connotes mandatory. That function provided there must be complied with. As for Mr. Mrindoko desist on Arbogast Warioba's case (supra), intimating that the case is irrelevant, but Mr. Shayo submitted that he cited it on the remedy of defective affidavit. Lastly, his rejoinder was on the case of Puma Limited, he prayed that the said case is irrelevant to the scenario at hand. That case was on numbering in the verification clause were contradictory which is different from the current application. He concluded with a prayer that the Court finds that affidavit in support of notice of motion is incurably defective, and the remedy is to struck out the application because it has not feet to stand on. After closing their submissions on the POs, the parties turned to the merit of the application. Both parties had time to submit. Mr. Mridoko, pleaded before commencing hearing of the application that the court hear the counsel for the 2nd respondent who came late for the interest of justice. It was Mr. Mrindoko's view that the counsel for the 2nd respondent will have no issues with the POs already argued. Mr. Shayo signified that he has no objection. On his part, Mr. John Kambo, counsel for the 2nd respondent, apologized for the coming late. But he also said he does not have any problem

with the POs raised by the 1st respondent. However, he notified the court that they have filed the affidavit in reply to protest the application at hand. Mr. Mrindoko began his submission by stating that the application is seeking stay of execution of decree in Matrimonial Cause No. 3 of 2018 High Court Dar es salaam sub-registry pending determination of appeal pending in this court. The application was brought under the rules (stated in the notice of motion) by way of notice of motion and supported by an affidavit of Amina Abdallah the application. He prayed to adopt them as part of his submission. It was his submission that the applicant fulfilled the conditions warranting the grant of order for stay of execution. The counsel submitted that referring to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit immediately after pronouncement of judgment the applicant lodged notice of appeal and letter requesting for proceedings which attached to the affidavit. Therefore, the first condition for grant of stay as per rule 11(3) of the Rules was fulfilled. He submitted that the application before this court was filed without delay in accordance with rule 11(4) of the Rules requiring the application for stay of execution to be filed withing 14 days from sen/ice of notice of execution. That is clear as per paragraph 5 of the affidavit she was served on 5th February 2025, and she managed to lodge this

application on 13th February 2025 and hence condition number two was fulfilled. According to paragraphs 6 and 7 she has shown that if the execution is allowed to proceed, she will suffer substantial loss. That is because the house subject of execution is a residential house where the applicant resides with her family. Therefore, if execution is allowed and the applicant will be evicted and she will be homeless and that suffering cannot be quantified, remedied by way of compensation because she has no house where she can reside with her family now. It was his view that rule ll(5)(a) of the Rules was met in this application. As regards the 4th condition, the applicant has stated that her appeal has an overwhelming chance of success and that if the application is not granted and execution will proceed then the appeal will be rendered nugatory. Turning to the 5th condition, the applicant through paragraph 8 of her affidavit she has undertaken to furnish security as shall be ordered by this Court. A firm undertaking to furnish security is enough guarantee as per the law because the decree sought to be executed is non-money decree. The applicant is ready to undertake condition to be given by this court in the stay of execution of the decree which is non-monetary. Mr. Shayo for the 1st respondent responded by praying to adopt the affidavit in reply filed by Halifa Athumani Magina (1st

respondent) to form part of his reply submission. Responding to submission in chief, paragraph 3 of the affidavit in reply, the documents that the applicant claims that were supplied to him were ready for collection since 1st of August 2023 and not on 18th December 2023. He submitted further that the applicant is seeking stay of execution in of decree Matrimonial Cause No. 3 of 2018, the said decree annexed as AB-1 to the supporting affidavit if this court will be pleased to peruse it, the decree ordered division of a single matrimonial property between the applicant and 1st respondent which is in Kondoa. That was the only order regarding the division of matrimonial property. That order has already been executed whereas the 1st respondent has stated in paragraph 4 and 5 of affidavit in reply what is found in the decree that has already been executed. Under paragraph 5 of 1st respondent's affidavit in reply they have attached the proceedings and ruling in execution No. 105 of 2023 before the High Court Dar es Salaam sub-registry where the 1st respondent filed an execution after moving the court for sale of matrimonial home in division of proceeds of the sale between the 1st respondent and the applicant herein by 80% and 20% respectively. Whereas the court on 30th August 2023 granted the said prayers and appointed the court broker by the name of Eagle Recoveries Limited so as to

proceed with sake of the said matrimonial property. Responding to the submission that the applicant will suffer substantial loss if the execution will proceed, the 1st respondent submitted that the applicant will not suffer substantial loss in a manner stated by the counsel that she will be homeless. Under paragraph 7 of the 1st respondent's affidavit in reply and the judgment in matrimonial cause No. 3 of 2018 annexed as AB-1 to the supporting affidavit, the applicant was given the house located at Msingwa Area Mbezi kwa Msuguri, Ubungo Dar 12 es Salaam. Thus, she cannot be homeless if she is evicted from the house located at Kijitonyama, Dar es Salaam. Further response from Mr. Shayo was that the submission of the applicant's counsel that the applicant lives with her family in the house from which she is sought to be evicted, but page 1 of the judgment of the HC the applicant and 1st respondent were blessed with three issues who by 2018 they were 21, 19 and 14 years respectively. All of the issues are now adults, and they are 28, 26 and 21 respectively. They are capable of being independent. The counsel went on submitting that the 1st respondent will suffer more if the application is granted as he an old man with nowhere to stay. Having stated so the counsel submitted that the applicant has failed to establish substantial loss that she will suffer in terms of rule 11(5) (a)

of the Rules. To buttress his submission Mr. Shayo cited the case of Salvatory Gibson v William Laurent Malya and Mariam I. Mbelwa, Civil application No. 6/05 of 2017 CAT at pages 7 and 8 this Court citing the decision of Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Company [1997] T.L.R. No. 63 it held that the king of loss must specified and details must be given and the conscience of the court must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. On the last condition with regards to security, he submitted that she (1st respondent) has stated in affidavit in reply under paragraph 8 the applicant has failed to state the manner of security she is willing to furnish so as the application may be granted. On this Mr. Shayo referred to page 9 para two of Salvatory's case. Conclusively he prayed that the court find that applicant has failed to comply with conditions in rule 11(5) of the Rules for grant of the order for stay of execution, and the application be dismissed with Costs. Mr. Kambo, for the 2nd respondent adopted the affidavit in reply of Ahmed Halifa Magina administrator of Mariam Said Benta. He submitted that as per rule 11(3) of the Rules, that notice of appeal alone is not a reason for stay of execution. The applicant must give good cause for grant of an order for stay of execution. The applicant's counsel claims that the applicant will be rendered homeless, that is

misconceived because the applicant was given another house located at Msingwa kwa Msuguri and it is habitable. The stay of execution will be to the detriment of the respondents. That has been stated in paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit in reply. It was his submission that if the court finds it proper to stay the execution and if it agrees with the applicant to furnish security then the condition be given that the 2nd respondent and other heirs be allowed to use part of the house, she is resisting moving out. Mr. Kambo concluded 14 his submission by praying that the application be dismissed because the applicant has failed to meet the requirements set in the law. By way of rejoinder, Mr. Mrindoko submitted that the prayer for costs should not be granted as these are matrimonial proceedings. Turning to the reply submission by the 1st respondent's counsel, Mr. Mrindoko while referring to paragraph 3 of supporting affidavit the documents requested for preparation of record of appeal and the letter dated 18th December 2023 from the registrar of HC for collection of the documents. Thus, he opined that the appeal pending in this court is within time that is Civil Appeal No. 503 of 2025. Another argument that the decree is already executed meaning this application is overtaken by events, and yet another argument that the property stated in the decree was that located at Kondoa, it is

the applicant's rejoinder that the property for which stay of execution is sought is plot 776 block 45C Kijitonyama, Dar es Salaam. The house that the 1st respondent was talking about is plot No. 72 Block Y Kondoa. He argued that is the one in the decree. Reading the decree, Mr. Mrindoko submitted there is nowhere where the two houses were mentioned by plot number and block number. There is no way one can discover the houses mentioned in the decree. The decree of the court simply mentioned shares in the building without providing details of that building such as plot number and block number. Mr. Mrindoko argued that if the execution is already completed why the 1st respondent filed another application for execution. He lamented that the respondent filed an application for every property. First was the house in Kondoa, and second (this time) the filed application for execution of decree in respect of the house at Kijitonyama. They are using the same decree. The applicant counsel suggested that there is no way one can say execution is completed. Besides, the Kijitonyama property is subject of appeal before this Court for it was matrimonial house of the applicant and the 1st respondent. Mr. Mrindoko disputed the argument that the applicant will not suffer substantial loss because his children are now of age of majority, and they are capable of being independent. There was no

submission from the respondents that the applicant and her family is not in possession of the property subject of this application for stay of execution. The eviction implies that the applicant will suffer physical loss of the property and emotional attachment to that property (as a matrimonial home) subject of appeal. She will also be rendered homeless. The argument that the applicant was given a house at Mbezi kwa Msuguri, in the judgment it was that the house was unfinished. It was under construction; hence it is unhabitable. As for the critic on security, Mr. Mrindoko rejoined that the applicant has undertaken to furnish security as the court will order. That in his view is sufficient under the law since the decree is not a monetary decree. He insisted that the applicant is ready to be given security conditions for stay of the execution of the decree. Regarding the suggestion by the second respondent who has not filed an application for execution that the 2nd respondent and other heirs be given room to stay in the property in dispute, Mrindoko rejected that view that these parties had been in dispute and for long time have lived separate due to unpeaceful life they have. Allowing them to live with the applicant in the same house will create more chaos. That is why Mr. Mrindoko does not support them living together because the court has separated them. In the end he prayed

for the application for stay of execution to be granted. Having heard the parties' submissions and before going to the merit of the application, I begin with the POs raised by the 1st respondent. These were two: firstly, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application because it was filed out of time. And secondly, that the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion is incurably defective for lacking the Registrar's endorsement at the foot. The date presented for filing and signature of the Registrar. The first limb of the PO will not detain this court much as rightly submitted by Mr. Mrindoko that there were two applications for execution of the decree at High Court. The first was filed in 2023 and it was in respect of the property in Kondoa, and the second one is Misc. Application No. 578 of 2025 High Court at Dar es Salaam sub-registry in respect of the property at Kijitonyama, Dar es Salaam. The latter is subject of this application where the applicant was served upon with notice of execution on 5th February 2025 and this application for stay of execution was filed in this court on 13th February 2025. Hence, it was filed timely. The first PO is thus overruled for lacking merit. The second PO puts the court to task as it presents a point which is somewhat novel. The gist of the PO is that the affidavit supporting the notice of motion is incurably defective for

lacking the endorsement by the Registrar and the date. The missing clause read as is presented for filing, date and signature of the Registrar. I have heard the parties' submissions and Mr. Shayo insisted that the lack of endorsement by the Registrar makes the affidavit incurably defective as it offends rule 18 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Mr. Mrindoko stiffly objected to such a perspective. He 18 contends that the affidavit is not defective because the notice of motion was endorsed, and the affidavit is part of the same. Delightedly, I noted that Arbogast Warioba's case (supra) was about a defect on verification clause, which is not the issue in the case at hand. Therefore, that authority is distinguished form this case. As per rule 18 of the Rules, the duty is imposed on the Registrar to endorse the documents. Thus, in my view if the document is not endorsed the applicant cannot bear the blame. A party cannot be punished for the inaction of a judicial officer. Strikingly, the clause presented for failing this...of ...2025 and signature o f the Registrar are conspicuously missing in the supporting affidavit. To disentangle the second PO, I took liberty of revisiting the ingredients of an affidavit. The Court of Appeal Rules do not prescribe a format of affidavit. However; Section 8 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act as well as case law have provided these

ingredients. One notable case is that of DPP v Dodoli Kapufi and Another, Criminal Application No. 11 of 2008 CAT. In that case at page 3, the essentials of an affidavit have been stated to include: (i) The statement or declaration of facts (ii) A verification clause (iii) A jurat, (iv) Signature From that it follows that the endorsement by the Registrar or registry officer is not the essential element of affidavit. At this juncture, and by analogy I would like to refer to the case of Godbless Jonathan Lema v Musa Hamisi Mkanga, and Two Others, Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2012 CAT where it was held that omission of the words " given under my hand and the seal o f the court" in the decree was not fatal because it did not go to root of the decree. In the same vein, I hold that the omission of the words " presented for filing this ...of ....year and signature o f the Registrar or registry officer" is inconsequential as it did not go to the root of the supporting affidavit. Also, taking into consideration the overriding objection under Section 3 of AJA, which has been framed to take care of defects as the one at hand found in the affidavit. That it should not hamper substantive justice. While the need for endorsement is found in the Rules, such is more of procedural requirements than substantive justice. I am aware of BP Tanzania Limited's case that overriding cannot be used blindly to

ignore the procedures prescribed in the Rules. But the same is distinguished from the present case as its defect does not invalidate the affidavit. Also it does not go to the root of the said affidavit In fine, the second PO lacks substance it is overruled. Following disposing of the POs, I now revert to the merit of the application. 20 As for the application the issue is whether the applicant has complied with the requirements under the Rules particularly rule 11(4) - (7). Looking at paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion and as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mrindoko, learned counsel for the applicant the requirements are: under rule 11(4) that the application was brought within 14 days of service of the notice of execution. The notice was served upon the applicant on 5th February 2025 and this application was filed on 13th February 2025. Therefore, it was brought within the time. Turning to rule 11(5) (a) and (b): that the applicant must satisfy the court that she or he may suffer substantial loss unless the order for stay of execution is granted; and that she has given security for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her. As for the first condition that she may suffer substantial loss, although the respondents have fiercely disputed it, the applicant has stated clearly in her affidavit paragraphs 6 and 7

that she will sustain substantial loss if execution is left to proceed. Her fear is that she will be evicted from the property she lives in with her family at Kijitonyama, Dar es salaam. That the alternative property suggested by the 2nd respondent is another house at Mbezi kwa Msuguri Dar es Salaam, which as stated in the judgment of the trial court it was under construction, hence unfinished and not habitable. I thus find the requirement of substantial loss is met. 21 I noted that the 2nd respondent's counsel raised alarm that if the applicant is allowed to stay in the property at Kijitonyama, then the 2nd respondent and other heirs be allowed to stay in the property too. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mrindoko that is controversial, and it will create chaos. Much as these heirs may have rights the same will have to be resolved on appeal. I thus decline such an invitation. As for the requirement of security in accordance with rule ll(5)(b) of the Rules, the parties were at loggerheads. The applicant deponed in paragraph 8 of her affidavit that she is willing to furnish security as the court will direct. The 1st respondent argued that the same is not security. But, as rightly held in several decisions of this Court, a commitment to issue security is allowed. See Evalyne Muna v Joseph Mshana, Civil application No. 277/17 of 2023 CAT at pages 6-8; and Luis Shija v Kellu Kamo

Lucas, Civil Application No. 209/14 of 2024 at page 8 . 1 thus find it to be sufficient in the context of this case that the dispute related to matrimonial property used as a dwelling, the applicant may execute commitment bond that will be sufficient as security. With regards to rule ll(7)(a)-(d) on the documents to be filed in Court to accompany an application for stay of execution, it is my considered view that the same were complied with and the parties were not at issue on this. Taking a toll of all the above, this Court finds that the application has merit. It is granted. The decree of the High Court in Matrimonial Case No. 3 of 2018 is stayed pending determination of the appeal before this Court. The foregoing order is subject to execution of commitment bond within 30 days from the date of this ruling. The matter at hand being matrimonial proceedings, each party shall bear its costs. Order accordingly. DATED at DODOMA this 5th day of March, 2025. U.

3. AGATHO

JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Ruling delivered this 5th day of March, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Rajabu Mrindoko, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Walter Shayo, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent and also holding brief for Mr. John Kambo, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent via video conference from Dar es Salaam, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. D. P. KINYWAFU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

COURT OF APPEAL