20010728 TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 20010728 TZCA Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 28 July 2001
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZCA
- Decision
- 28 July 2001
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appellant was lawfully remanded in custody under a lawful court order, and the absence of court records did not establish unlawful detention. The objection regarding non-joinder of parties was not timely raised. The judge was not required to disqualify himself as there was no evidence of bias or interest. The appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
02
Material facts
Parties
Appellant
Appellant Counsel: Mr. NachumbuguRespondents
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Chikow03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant was lawfully remanded in custody
- 02
Whether the proper parties were joined in the suit
- 03
Whether the judge should have disqualified himself
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that his incarceration was unlawful as no court record or charge was produced, and that the absence of such records indicated unlawful detention. He also challenged the non-joinder of parties and sought judicial disqualification due to prior adverse decisions by the judge.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the appellant was lawfully remanded under a lawful order of the Kariakoo Primary Court, that the court never allowed the appellant to go on bail for lack of prosecution, and that the appellant was not entitled to damages. They also contended that the objection regarding non-joinder should have been raised earlier.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judgment text
A judge or magistrate should not be asked to disqualify himself or herself for flimsy or imaginary fears; disqualification is warranted only if there is evidence of bad blood or a direct interest in the outcome.
- 02
Order I Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966
Objections regarding non-joinder of parties must be raised before or at the time of settling issues.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appellant was lawfully remanded in custody under a lawful court order, and the absence of court records did not establish unlawful detention. The objection regarding non-joinder of parties was not timely raised. The judge was not required to disqualify himself as there was no evidence of bias or interest. The appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- A judge or magistrate should not be asked to disqualify himself or herself for flimsy or imaginary fears.
- Disqualification is only appropriate if there is evidence of bad blood or a direct interest in the outcome.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Source and reliance status
TZCA · 28 July 2001
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZCA
Judgment· 28 July 2001
.--,~ F'HO;lE H!J. 255 .:.::. ... 2116654 1. IN::;f1x:=.:.-..1: C:~21 ..".L r;f l-'CLl'.::~,; 2 & 'l~ P.. 'i''i(J!=:.if\!bY ~l-fi!~Al1 ,-•· (Appeal fro,:; fr,•?. w:-::ision cf thE' high Col.l!"'t c,f Ta.nz.ania r::.t l)~r' cs Salc:i.a.:~) in H.e a€lid th.3.t :n-1 bth ... him of cont.?~pt of co'->.rt f:::,r :i,:it E-t:u·,d.i."g ,:::.::- •r1her, the ::;"1.r.;i:strate l~tt the ccurtro;::,m. ·. f,o, .so~i:::: ot.her---p0J. icemen surrounded. him .:i.r:.d, i.tpon the . . . . . .J . HIGH COURT OF TANZAHIA PHONE NO. 255 22 2116654 Au-3. 24 2001 11: 37AM P2 ., 2 comma.nd~r ,:,f tlw p,:1 .lice officer~ who tnMh-~110.led hirn, D-rld the Attorney Geuerttl, as the chi,:::f- leg.er,J. ,:.1.,1viser of th-~ Govern:,10nt which is th<a employer of the ruagiGtratc srnd th~ police, toco ( ii) ,ib.·tb,;,•r the~ pLd.n.tiff h'ao J..::?.\•1fully rer:.and,3!d in cu..<,i;ody. (iii) To what r,s•lief, if .::.r,y, W:'..S the pb..L."ltiff E:,r.titled to. hus prefcrr-ed this appu;:..l. His advoc.::1.ti.; w2.s Er. hc-..3htm1bugu, l;?Z!.rned counsel, and the respondents had the se1·vi;.;os of i'-'.r. Chic.ow'.l, 10.:-,rncd st.'.:tte attorney. on the fir.st issuG:; i:.b"a, inc:~.rc,n·at:i.on \,•r~s lo.w:fuJ.; o..nd. that th~ Hppellant ,-1as trouble.sor,i€! -:~nd. that lK· wcls not Gr..t i'Llcd. to any dc:1:1-~gco o ,dth the clai!:-!s; D/CpJ.~ D.:;;niel Mchon10 (D1:!5) and. Cpl. ,James (DW6), two of the police
officc.::.·s on duty 3.t the }~-tcndt:ni Pri:-;1:;iry C1)w.~t on th~ material witnessc;;s to pl'Oduce court record, ao ord<;)T•.:.)d. by KYAl•;ro, ,To, si-,owiug that the appel~211t f~c0d ~ny cri?..'lm1l ch2.rg;;,., Mr o ,:C.=ihurr;";__,:...gu co.c,,;:;_uded the absence of thos~ record can only ~~z._.-,_ th-::i.t -:he: il1ce.rceratic:1 was unl.Awful. I I II t,;_1-11 1 J. I I non- joinder of pe.rti<)s. He argued that the 'i:c-::.·t:fo·a.Gor:3 o:.,ght to have been sued tQgether viith their ~mploye1·s 3.11d not the lett.zr a.'!..one. However, under O I R ·13 of ·the Civil P:r-ocedure C::-de, 1966, this CJbjection ou;ht to have be,s,n ni.ised. before :::r .;,t thc::1 tiwe of E-ettlil.16' is:::-ues and that of three torts; 15 Registers, wh5.oh viould h.;;.ve disc.loccc ·U~e rE::a.so:1 :for l:is :i.nc;;,rce!"ation 1 have convenientl~r disappeared. Con!:',eqoently, he <1!"g1..\Gd, on 12-ch Dece::nber 1 1987 he .,.,c1s let 5cot-free • Admittedly, no co1.i..rt record. \•J;.;.s ~ro(1.u.c~(i. and al.so the :?risonP-rs 1 • Par;:..i::.raph 3 of th.., t·ir:i.tten stat~rn0nt of;' cl.efen:~o .t:i;i.ckled th.at by sl.'l.ying: ..• /4 Tb,i.t pa.Y·;.e. 5 i.s den.:i.8d. Tile de:..0nd.ants .s~c1.te that the plaintiff vi;:,$ r,:::,·,:anr.l.F? d under- a l.,:;.wful ord~r· :\.~-:s~ed by the K;,,.riakoo Primary Gourt. lt i.s £urth8r e,tat<::·d the court nev8r fJ.llot·J~d the pl8-intiff to ;,go
bo:,1'"-'·· for }.;;._c}~ of prosocution on the 12/'12/87. Wh.?..t tr,,,nspir~d. \-/aE that the plaintiff ;;,,:;b:n:l the (:Oill'·c to t:ca;.'l~,fer ~::.s c&.!)e to t,:1e Dist::.-ict Co,.Tt of Ilala so thc.t he GCt:.lc'. engage a."1 cl.UVOCate. ,,.... .·\ . in chart:'-" I ro.ised protc:.c, ,..:· .. :..., :..;·: ... : ar·rezt on ccncccted c\1~;rc;!? of :X.:;.t.t~?f~ _ ;:~.:. . rf::,!)la.nd \·ja;.rr;,.nt ._ ... ~~---- -·,·..• and .:,.s 1-Jritten iri.- .the.· f;1-isun ?.r3 1 --.~,. ...... .., ... , ••• ·-o1-=--'-·•...:.::.. ·• .--._.....-~ ·-- •. ~-- .........• - ~ - · - - ~ - -..... - .• either to 1(:iE,.ttu c-r !<'.ivui-:oui .!:ir;,sider.-.t 1'here is no £licker of du1J.bt tL•.-t. -;:he un:iGll~mt bi!::self ~c1-;:nowledges and that that charce \.fv.B ::cec,o:rded on tb:.: He.·n,.;;~d ;:brr:.;nt and a}so in the abs~nce of a cbarg~. 5 The appellant al:3o confcr-;c2d th~1.t. !1e w::.l-5 no·c. J.et .scot-•fr~e but th!c'.t he was given 'bail after he had i·::::qu.ast.:;:d tha.t the ca.se be transferrec:~ :from .tbe I<. .- r iakoo J?.r imary .Court , tho a1:ipcllant has adrni tted. thc>.t there ~ a charg~~ pref'crred ag,::,.1115-i; him -=<.!.1d. that the ch.c,r£0 waJ;;; the cause of his b,~ ;i.';'l.g remanded. L'1. px'ison, -tr:,:;)n it c.:o..1:11ct ·ce sa;..d thst his If there ,.;i;l_;,; fr.1.).t-c :in,pri1:.:or:u,1ent W'i! ii::i.ght :1av0 br::en telilpt.?d to find comment on when a
party cs.n ,g_sk a jucig0 to <.l.ir.:qucl-1:i.fy hlr.-<$elf or hers•:ilf wrote to the }lono\U-D.ble the Cbie:f Just:i.<~e S8<?~d..."lg our lf:arnt?tl bro-th-er, LUdAKlNGIRA, tT ~A~, to cl.faqualify \1i.r11self. ':':'he .::•eazon given v1as that the learned judgr:: together with two oth0r broti:1<?-rs, iric lu<ling the C .J. at the ti.me ,vhen he was not the C .,J·", <lee ided aga.i?lSt the appolla."1t in a totally different litig~tion. LUGAK.Ii-:Gllt1, J.&Ao rd'i;,s~d to do so. At ••• /6 ,/21.· ~··· "'"' 6 sent again to the CoJ. who directed_that the matter be put before the learned ·judge .... LUGAKIN.GIP,At .J ~A. again refused .to d.isqua.lif'y himself, ... and rightly .so.· raised in the follo•,Jing cil·cU!'.!'!s ta:aeeG! One, if. there is evidenc-e of bad blood between -t·..,~- litigai'lt :.-.nd tho judge concerned. T\,;,:::, 1 if the judge ,,..\ if the judge ·or a.rr.~:nber ·of his 1:::lose farnily- 1-iM an inter&st in ti:1.e. out~e of the litigation oth~~ th.m t~ administration. o.f just.ice• .A .judge or a J112.gistrate shoulc. .!'.lot be -asl~ed to di.'.;qualify hil!!.s-elf or .. hers.?li for fl.irnSy or ialagin.ary fears. · this appe2.l is d.i.s::r,~ed. with . . ,,.:. ;.. .S • L. rtJJ,i:0.D:i.ANI JUSJ.T:::E -~--- Of' ti-:>F..~AL D.Z. LUBUVA JUSTICB O:f AI':?EAL K.,3 .IC. LUG1Uu.NGI?.A ~- - JU:.;TICB 01· .APP.EAL ·1 ee:rtif'y that this is a. tr-ue eopy of the origio;.:.l.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.