Civil Refference No

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANi .ANIA AT DAS ES SALAAM ( CORAM: LUBUVA, J .A .« MROSO, J . A . , And MUNUO, J . A . ) CIVIL REFERENCE NO. k OF 200?. BETWEEN. BANK OF TANZANIA. . . . . . . . . APPLICANT AND DEVRAM P. VALAMBHEA. . . . . . . . RESPONDENT (R eferen ce to the F u ll Court a g a in st the R u lin g o f the S in g le Judge o f the Court o f Appeal o f Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) ( Ramad hani, J »A .) dated the 27th day o f March, 2002 in C i v i l A p p lic a t ion N o, 15 o f 2002 » RULING LUBUVA, J . A . ; T his r e fe r e n c e a r is e s from the d e c is io n o f a S in g le Judge o f t h is Court in C i v i l R eferen ce N o. 2 o f 2000, d ism issin g the a p p lic a t io n f o r s ta y o f e x e c u tio n by the a p p lic a n t . The background g iv in g r i s e to the m atter has been so a b ly s e t out by the lea rn ed S in g le Judge in the r u lin g th at i t is hardly n e c e s sa r y f o r us to make a r e p e t it io n o f i t in t h is r u lin g . However, in ord er to f a c i l i t a t e an easy a p p r e cia tio n o f the c o n t e n t io u s , is su e s in t h is a p p lic a t io n , we th in k i t is d e s ir a b le to h ig h lig h t the bare e s s e n t ia ls o f the background. In High Court C i v i l Case N o. 120 o f 1989? Devram P . Valambhia, the resp on d en t, obta in ed a decree a g a in st Transport Equipment L im ited f o r the sum o f US 55 i099i ^7^ « 66 . On k/r>/200']1 a Garnishee O rder was is su e d by the High Court d ir e c t in g t h i Bank c f Tanzania, the a p p lic a n t , to pay t h is amount t o the R e g is tr a r o f the High Court 2 from the accounts o f the Government o f Tanzania. The a p p lic a n t f i l e d o b je c t io n p roceed in g s p rayin g f o r among oth er o r d e r s , the s e t t i n g a s id e o f the Garnishee O rd er. The grounds f o r the o b je c t o r p ro ce e d in g s were th at the Garnishee Order was t a in te d w ith i l l e g a l i t y because i t was issu ed c o n tra ry to the law . D ism issin g the a p p lic a t io n on 21 „1 .2002, the lea rn ed judge o f the High C ou rt, (C h ip e ta , J . ) h eld th a t the Garnishee ord er was p r o p e r ly issu e d and s e rv e d on the a p p lic a n t s . I t was fu r th e r h old th at the o rd e r sh ou ld have been obeyed. The a p p lic a n ts were a g g rie v e d , hence n o t ic e o f a p p ea l was f i l e d on 21r1?.2002. Pending the d eterm in a tion o f the a p p e a l, the a p p lic a n t f i l e d an a p p lic a t io n in t h is Court seek in g s ta y o f e x e c u tio n . As s t a te d e a r l i e r , a s in g le judge o f the Court d ism issed the a p p lic a t io n and a ls o s tr u c k out the n o t ic e o f a p p e a l. From t h is d e c is io n , th is r e fe r e n c e has been p r e fe r r e d . B e fo re the learn ed s in g le ju d g e, a p relim in a ry o b je c t io n was r a is e d on b e h a lf o f the resp on d en t. I t was contended th a t there was no p rop er n o t ic e o f ap p eal upon which an ord er f o r s ta y o f e x e c u tio n c o u ld be founded. The s in g le judge was urged to s t r ik e out the n o t ic e o f a p p e a l. B r i e f l y s t a t e d , the fo llo w in g was the essen ce o f the argument in su pport o f the p relim in a ry o b je c t i o n : th a t s e c t io n 5 (1 ) o f the A p p e lla te J u r is d ic t io n A c t , 1979 p ro v id e s . f o r ap p eals to the Court ex ce p t whore any o th e r w ritte n lav; p r o v id e s o th e r w is e . I t was contended that t h is m atter b e fo r e the High Court and the S in g le Judge f a l l s w ithin the p r o v is io n s o f O rder 21 Rule 62 o f the C i v i l P rocedure C ode, 1966 which i s the law p r o v id in g oth erw isec In th a t case i t was fu rth er subm itted th a t the a p p lic a n t had no r ig h t o f a p p ea l, in s te a d , a s u i t sh ou ld have been in s t it u t e d . For th a t rea son , as the n o t ic e o f ap p eal was m is c o n c e iv e d , che s in g 'x judge was urged t o s ti'ik e out the n o t ic e o f a p p e a l, .../ 3 On the e th e r hand, on b e h a lf o f the a p p lic a n t i t was s tr o n g ly argued th a t Rule 62 o f O rder 21 o f the C i v i l Procedure Code, 1966, does n o t apply to the in s ta n t case which in v o lv e s money by use o f a g a rn ish ee o r d e r . I t was su bm itted th a t the attachm ent o f money f a l l s under the p r o v is io n s o f Rule ^5 Of the C i v i l P rocedure Code 1966 which i s in p a r i m ateria w ith r u le k6 o f the In d ia n Code o f C i v i l Procedure# I t was fu r th e r subm itted th at the law in Tanzania i s s im ila r t o the law o b ta in in g in iCngland where th ere is a r ig h t o f a p p e a l. T h e re fo r e , i t was urged that Order 21 Rule 62 does n ot p r o v id e oth erw ise and th e r e fo r e the a p p lica n t had a r ig h t o f a p p e a l. The lea rn ed s in g le judge was s a t i s f i e d that Order 21 Rule 62 o f the C i v i l Procedure Code 1966 , is the law envisaged under the p r o v is io n s o f s e c t i o n 5 (1 ) o f the A p p e lla te J u r is d ic t io n A c t , 1979 which p rov id es o t h e r w is e . C on sequ ently, he held, th at the a p p lic a n t d id n ot have a r ig h t o f appeal to the Court and th at the n o t ic e o f ap p ea l was m is c o n c e iv e d , c o n se q u e n tly , i t was s tr u c k o u t . In t h is r e fe r e n c e , Mr. C . Tenga and Mr. Kbwambo, lea rn ed c o u n s e l appeared f o r the a p p lic a n t . Mr. Tenga s tr e n u o u sly a s s a ile d the le a rn e d s in g le judge in h o ld in g that the a p p lic a n t had no r ig h t o f ap p ea l to t h is Court in garn ish ee p ro ce e d in g s . He m aintained th a t O rder 21 Rule 62 o f the C i v i l Procedure Code, 1966 i s n ot the law th a t p ro v id e s oth erw ise in terms o f s e c t io n 5 (1 ) o f the A p p ella te J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t , 1979• A ccord in g to Mr. Tonga, r u le 62 i s n ot r e le v a n t t o the in s t a r t case bccause in Tanzania th ere i s no express p r o v is io n in the. C i v i l P rocedure Code f o r a garn ishee o rd e r o r the g a r n is h e e . He fu r th e r argued th a t s in c e Order 21 Rule 62 d id not ap p ly to the c a r e , i t was p rop er f o r the Court to draw an in s p ir a t io n from England or In d ia whose p r o v is io n s are in p a r i m ateria w ith O rder 21 Rule in Tanzania t o enable the a p p lic a n t to ch a lle n g e on a p p ea l the d e c is io n in garn ish ee o b je c t o r p roceed in g s* Furtherm ore, M r. Tenga contended th a t the f a c t th a t Rule 62 o f Order 21 is couched w ith the words “ s u b je c t to the r e s u lt o f such s u i t , i f any, the ord er s h a ll be c o n c lu s iv e " does not mean th at the ord er s h a l l n o t be a p p e a la b le . Had the le g is la t u r e intended th a t an o rd e r under r u le 62 sh ou ld n o t be a p p e a la b le , i t would have been s ta te d s o . As i t i s , he in s is t e d th at the a p p lic a n t had a r ig h t o f ap p ea l and th at the n o t ic e o f ap p eal was p r o p e r . He s a id th at had the s in g le judge co n s id e re d the m atter in t h is l i g h t , he would have gran ted the a p p lic a t io n f o r s ta y o f e x e c u tio n . On a p p e a l, M r. Tenga s t r e s s e d , the l e g a l i t y o f the garn ishee o rd e r would be lo o k e d i n t o . M r. M aira, learn ed co u n s e l f o r the resp on d en t, v ig o r o u s ly opposed the p relim in a ry o b j e c t i o n . A p p aren tly, he had a ls o re p re s e n te d the respondent in the High C ou rt. I t was h is subm ission th a t the p r o v is io n s o f Order 21 Rule 62 which are unambiguously c l e a r , i s the law which p r o v id e s otherw ise in terms o f s e c t io n 5 (1 ) o f the A p p ella te J u r is d ic t io n A c t , 1979» That b e in g the p o s i t i o n o f the law in Tanzania, no appeal l i e s to t h is C ou rt, Mi-. M aira ch a rged . He fu rth er subm itted that in o b je c t o r p roceed in g s as was the ca se in t h is m a tter, the p a rty a g a in st whom the o rd e r was made, may opt t o in s t it u t e a s u it to e s ta b lis h i t s r ig h t -over the p r o p e r ty a tta c h e d . He a ls o s t a t e d th at under the p r o v is io n s o f r u le 62 s u b je c t to the r e s u lt o f the s u i t , the ord er s h a l l be c o n c lu s iv e , which a c c o r d in g t o him means that the d e c is io n i s n ot a p p e a la b le . In su p port o f h is subm ission that the e x p re s sio n ‘ •shall be f i n a l o r c o n c lu s iv e '' means that the d e cisio n is n ot a p p e a la b le , 5 Mro M aira r e fe r r e d to the In dia n cases o f : Mohamed Ebrahim H o o lla v ersu s S.H . Jandass 1923 A .I .R . 9k and Phoman Singh V A .J . Well s A .I .R . 1923 Rangoon 195* He a ls o r e fe r r e d t o an oth er In dian case o f Maung Ba Han V S.M.A.R.M Firm AIR 193^ •» Rangoon 230 f o r the c o n te n tio n th at where an a p p lic a t io n unde,? r u le 57 o f O rder 21 is d is m is s e d , the p rop er remedy is the in s t it u t io n o f a s u i t under r u le 62 o rd e r 21„ We s h a l l f i r s t d e a l w ith ground fou r ir. the a p p lic a t io n fo r r e fe r e n c e . In t h is ground, the com plaint ie th a t the le a rn e d S in g le Judge e r r e d in h o ld in g th a t the E n g lish p r a c t ic e and p roced u re does n o t a p p ly in Tanzania in G arnishee p r o c e e d in g :. I t i s t o be observed th a t the lea rn ed S in g le Judge a r r iv e d a t t h is c o n c lu s io n because in h is view though the E n g lish lav; and p r a c t ic e was s im ila r but was n ot the sair.e, i t did. not apply in Tanzania where :he law i s c le a r and unambiguous. From the r e c o r d i t is apparent that the le a rn e d S in g le Judge c l o s e l y examined the r e le v a n t p r o v is io n s o f the C i v i l Procedure Code, 1966 in Tanzania w ith reg a rd to the attachm ent o f money. These r e l a t e to Order 21 Rules *+0 t o 56 and 37 to 62 o f the Tanzania C i v i l P roced u re Code, 1966. From *ur rea d in g o f :4 u lla , The Code o f C i v i l P roced u re A c t, 1S08 A bridged T h ir t ie t h E d it io n , th ese are in p a r i m a teria w ith Order 21 R ules 46 t o 63 o f the In dian C ode. I t is common knowledge th at a number o f le g i s l a t i o n s in Tanzania which were en a cted b e fo r e independence have c lo s e s i m ila r it y w ith co rre s p o n d in g l e g i s l a t i o n s in England and I n d ia , The reason is n ot f a r t o s e e k , the E n glish law was in trod u ced in Tanzania through I n d ia . For in s ta n c e , t h is Court a llu d e d to the s im i l a r i t y in the lav; o f banking and garn ishee ord ers a p p lic a b le in Tanzania and England in the ca se o f F e lix R u ta zen gelera v _ Cp-pjp_erativ o and R u ral Development Bank C1966 ) T .L .R „ 382 . With r e s p e c t , we agree w ith the lea rn ed S in g le Judge th a t apart from pronouncing i t s e l f on the s i m ila r it y ,../6 6 - o f the law in England and Tanzania in the lav? o f banking the Court d id n ot d ecid e in th a t case th a t in m atters p e r ta in in g t o garn ishee o r d e r s , the law o f England has to be a p p lie d in T anzania, S im ila r ly , the le a rn e d s in g le judge compared the p r o v is io n s o f r u le o f the C i v i l P rocedure Code, 1966 in Tanzania with iiule 46 Order 21 in I n d ia w hich, as observed e a r l i e r , are in p a r i m a te ria . F in a lly the s in g le judge came to the c o n c lu s io n th a t once the in v e s tig a tio n - o f the o b je c t io n t o attachm ent p roceed in g s was com pleted in terms o f r u le s 57 t o 6Q ih o C a v il P roced u re Code-, then r u le 62 o f O rder 21 came in t o p la y . T h is , as a lre a d y shown, was vehemently c h a lle n g e d by M r. Tenga, fo r the a p p lic a n t . At t h is s t a g e , we th in k i t is d e sir a b le to c o n s id e r whether in d e a lin g with the ga rn ish ee o rd e r the learn ed S in g le Judge was c o r r e c t in h old in g t h a t the a p p lic a b le law in Tanzania was r u le 62 order 21. We agree with Mr. Tenga th a t in Tanzania, th ere i s no ex p ress p r o v is io n in the C i v i l P rocedure Code f o r e it h e r the g a rn ish ee o r garn ishee o r d e r . However, th is fa c t a lon e we th in k is n ot enough to j u s t i f y Mr. T on ga 's co n te n tio n th at the Court s.hould draw an in s p ir a t io n frttm In d ia o r England in d e a lin g w ith the g a rn ish ee o r d e r . From our re a d in g o f the eq u iv a len t p r o v is io n s o f th e In d ia n Code o f C i v i l P roced u re and in p a r t ic u la r , r u le s 46 to 63 o r d e r 21, i t is c le a r th a t they are s im ila r ly vrorded as the corresp on d ­ in g r u le s in the fcanzanian C ode. I t i s to be observed th a t th ese p r o v is io n s d e a l w ith both movable and immovable p r o p e r ty in c lu d in g money d e cre e s which can be s a t i s f i e d by use o f ga rn ish ee o r d e r s . T h e r e fo r e , the mere absence o f an express mention o f garn ish ee or ga rn ish ee ord ers in the C i v i l P rocedure Code o f Tanzania i s no ground f o r f a u lt in g the S in g le Judge in r e fu s in g to a cce p t the in v it a t io n by • • «/7 7 the a p p lic a n t 's co u n se l t o draw an in s p ir a tio n from In d ia o r England. For one t h in g , and as ju s t s t a t e d , the Indian Code does n ot a ls o have an exp ress p r o v is io n fo r a garn ish ee o r f i m i s h e e order# T h e re fo r e , we are in agreement with- the Single- Judge in h is c o n c lu s io n th a t the a p p lic a b le law in Tanzania was r u le 62 o rd e r 21 o f the C i v i l Procedure Code 1966. F i r s t , i t is common knowledge th a t the co u rts in Tahzania are n ot bound by d e c is io n s o f the c o u rts in .England o r I n d ia . O f c o u r s e , th ere i s no ga in sa yin g th a t the d e c is io n s o f the c o u rts in England and Inc.ia are o f g re a t p ersu a siv e a u t h o r it y . Depending on the circum stancee o f the ca se and the a p p lic a b le law in the co u n try , i t is open fo r the c o u r ts in Tanzania t o a p p ly the p r in c ip le s o f law o r draw the i n s p ir a t io n ' from d e c is io n s o f the c o u rts in o th e r ju r i s d i c t i o n s in clu d in g In d ia o r England* In t h is ca se the lea rn ed s in g le judge having d e c lin e d t o ap p ly the law and p r a c t ic e o b ta in in g in In d ia o r England In p r e fe r e n c e t o the law o b ta in in g in Tanzania, namely O rder 21 Rule 62 in o b je c t io n p r o c e e d in g s , ca n n ot, in our view be fa u lt e d . From the scheme o f the C i v i l Procedure Code 1966, i t i s apparent to us that once the in v e s t ig a t io n o f o b je c t io n t o attachm ent p ro ce e d in g s in terms o f r u le s 57 t o 60 ore com pleted, r u le 62 Order 21 comes in t o p la y . In t h is c a s e , a f t e r the attachm ent o b je c t o r p ro ce e d in g s was d isa llo w e d in the High Court (C h ip eta , J .) on 2 1 .1 .2 0 0 2 , the lea rn ed s in g le judge held, th at the ord er was c o n c lu s iv e , u n le ss s u b je c t to the r e s u lt o f a s u i t , i f i t is i n s t i t u t e d . The le a r n e d s in g le judge to o k the view th at the use o f the word ‘ 'c o n c lu s iv e 1' in r u le 62 means that th ere is no r ig h t o f ap p eal a g a in s t the ord er d is a llo w in g the o b je c t o r attachm ent p r o c e e d in g s „ As su bm itted by .../8 8 ^ M r. M aira, we are in agreement .with the lea rn ed S in g le Judge in the in t e r p r e t a t io n o f ru le 62 o r d e r 21 which re a e s: 62 ~ Where a claim o r an' o b je c t io n is p r e fe r r e d , the p a rty a g a in st whom an ord er is made may in s t it u t e a ■ ' •" s u it to e s t a b lis h the r ig h t wliich .. ha claim s to the p r o p e r ty ip dispute b u t , s u b je c t to th'- r e s u lt o f such s u i t . i f any^ the i\ c r shalj, be c o n c lu s iv e , (und .r lin in g . su p p lied ) « Our re a d in g o f the r u le e x t r a c t e d above* makes i t abundantly * le a r th a t i f - n o s u i t is in s t it u t e d by the pajffcy a g a in s t whom the o r d e r i s made under t h is r u l e , and s u t jje c t to„th fc r e s u lt o f the s u it^ . th e o r d e r i s c o n c lu s iv e * In o u r v i e i n . tfce cou rse o f the s u i t the jgajrty a g a in s t whom the ord er was mads .can. among e t h e r s , c h a ile o g e the. v a l i d i t y , o r oth erw ise _of gam.ish.es ^Jrdcr as i.~-L' as < 3stablish in g i t s r ig h ts . The d e c is io n from su ch c* s u i t w o u ld ,,we ven tu re th in k , . be open t o appeal* On the ♦ th cr ’hand, i f no c n t i s p r e fe r r e d ^ l ik e the. S in g le Judge, we are o f *the view that, the o rd e r re m a in s . ia ta c-t ■ i ... i ■ ' ^ and c o n c lu s iv e * That in ou r Triage i s the. .import; o f r u l ^ ^ * r d e r 2 i» Mr. M aira, had. s tr e n u o u s ly urged th^-t the word ^conclus.i_Ye;‘ lias th e same meaning- as^;*fanali4»tv0n. tile -e th e r hand, M r. Tenga, v i o l e n t l y a s s a ile d t h is submossi?>nT’"A c c o r d in g to Mr. Tenga, the ■ w ording ••conclusive1' in r u le 62 ord er 21■does n ot p re clu d e the r ig h t o f a p p ea l a g a in st the o r d e r . We agree wxth Mr* T on ga 's subm ission * th a t i f the in te n tio n o f tHe le g is la tu r e * w a s tha~ the o rd e r s h a l l n ot be a p p e a la b le , 'i t sh ou ld have been s t a t e d s o , However, it'T s * to he ob serv ed tha.t f o r a p rop er a p p r e c ia tio n o f the law, r u le 62 o rd e r 21 » * »/9 • 9 has t o be read in i t s w h o lis t ic c o n t e x t . In our view , r u le 62 is worded such t h a t , upon a p rop er c o n s tr u c t io n , i t s re n d e rin g has the same e f f e c t as ru le 7 o rd e r XLII o f the C i v i l P rocedure C ode, 1966 in v;hich i t is e x p r e s s ly s t a t e d th a t there i s no r ig h t o f appeal* In t h is ease* u n lik e r u le 7 O rder X I I I , r u le 62 p ro v id e s an a lc e r n a t iv e o f f i l i n g a s u i t w hich, s u b je c t to the r e s u lt o f the s u i t , the o rd e r i s f i n a l and u n a p p ea la b le. S o , as h e ld by the lo o m e d S in g le Judge, i f the o p tio n e£ f i l i n g a s u i t i s n o t -ta k e n , the o rd e r i s c o n c lu s iv e . As shown e a r l i e r , the word “ conclusive*- was c e n tr a l, in the subm issions, by cou n sel f o r b oth p a r t i e s . While Mr. M aira s t r o n g ly con ten d ed th a t i t means f i n a l and n ot ap p ealable M r. Tenga was < fir m ly o f the view th at i t was n o t f i n a l and th at i t was open to a p p e a l. In the In dian eases o f Phoman 3ing;h Versus A .J . V.'ells A I R ^ g i.R ^ o ^ J ^ Ba Ha Versus S .M<,R»M. Firm A .I .R . 193^< Rangoon 230 a v a ile d t o u s , the Rangoon High Court in In d ia had. o c c a s io n to address the is s u e w hile e x e r c is in g i t s r e v is io n a l ju r is d ic tio n . D ealin g w ith a s im ila r s it u a t io n based on an ord e r made under Order 21 Rule 63 o f the In dian Code o f C i v i l P roced u re, the e q u iv a le n t o f Order 21 Rule 62 in Tanzania^ b e fo r e the 1976 amendment in In rlia, the CouH; s t a t e d in t e r a l i a : In my o p in io n where the ord er in q u estion h a s, a f t e r p rop er in v e s t ig a t io n , been p r o p e r ly passed under Order 21, Rules 59 - 63 , (th e e q u iv a le n t Order 21 Rules 57 - 62 in Tanzania) C i v i l Procedure Code, t h is C ourt sh ou ld n o t , even though the ord er be e rro n e o u s, in t e r fe r e on r e v is io n s in ce th ere i s a remedy, by s u i t , (emphasis s u p p lie d ) ./10 10 — Hence where an a p p lic a t io n under Order 21 Rule 58 is dism issed ho p roper remedy i s n ot a r e v is io n a p p lic a t io n from o rd e r o f d ism is sa l but a s u i t under Order 21 Rule 63 From t h i s , i t is ev id en t^ th a t even to tl'-e r e s t r i c t e d li m i t of r e v i s i o n , the Court does in te r fe r e - w ith tl~‘ ord er madeURdep O rder 21 E u les 59 - 63 in I n d ia , the e q u iv a le n t o f Cruder <L\ BuleS 57 6 ^ in Tanzania a f t e r the in v e s t ig a t io n is cofr:>l ■.<_■£. In the in s ta n t c a s e , the in v e s t ig a t io n was duly c a r r ie d out cjic. art o r d e r d ie a llo w in g the a p p lic a t io n was p a ssed - C onsequently* the ord er made under Rule 62 w ould n o t be in t e r fe r e d w ith even on revi&_on s in c e an oth er remedy by way o f a s u i t i s provided.*- T his i s the vi^w th at th e le a rn e d S in g le Judge exp ressed with which we are r e s p e c t f a lly in agreem ent. In Phoman S in g h , (su p ra ) the Bangoon Court went fu r th e r t o a d d ress the in t e r p r e t a t io n o f the word ••conclusive5-. I t was the view o f the c o u r t that the word ‘ ‘c o n c lu s iv e ’^ has the some meaning os !ifin a l- ' which a ls o means u n a p p ea la b le. So., i f the c o u r t was to draw an in s p ir a t io n from In d ia as urgec. by Mr. Tenga, th a t would be o f no a v a i l to him because the c o n c lu s io n would be the same as that o f the S in g le Judge. That i s , the ord er m.ide under Rule 62 Order 21 i s c o n c lu s iv e s u b je c t on ly to the r e s u lt o f the s u it i f in s t i t u t e d . I n f i n e , we ore s a t i s f i e d th at Rule 62 Order 21 o f the C i v i l P roced u re Code, 1966 is the, law in Tanzania rega rd in g o b je c t o r p r o c e e d in g s . We agree w ith the lea rn ed S in g le Judge th a t as en visaged under s e c t io n 5 (1 ) o f the A p p e lla te J u r is d ic t io n A c t , 1979, Rule 62 O rder 21, p ro v id e s oth erw ise w ith regard to appeals t o t h is C ou rt. . . / 1 1 __ 11 I t is th e r e fo r e apparent to us th a t even in I n d ia , the p o s i t i o n o f the law u n t il the amendment was e f f e c t e d in 1976 was th a t the r ig h t o f appeal from the d e c is io n o f the c o u r t in o b je c t o r p ro ce e d in g s upon in v e s t ig a t io n was c u r t a ile d . I t was a f t e r the amendment o f Rules t o MxL in 197&» th at the In d ia n Code o f C i v i l P rocedure e x p r e s s ly p ro v id e d under ru le f o r a r ig h t o f ap p ea l w ith regard to ord ers made a g a in s t a garn ishee d is p u t in g l i a b i l i t y o r does n ot pay fo rth w ith in t o cou rt* The p o s it io n in Tanzania s t i l l remains as i t s t o o d in In d ia p r io r to the 1976 amendment. We are th e r e fo r e in agreement w ith the le a rn e d s in g le ju d g e t h a t , in term® o f the p r o v is io n s o f r u le 62% the a p p lic a n t does n ot have a r ig h t o f a p p e a l. Having taken t h is view o f the m a tte r, we do n ot th in k th a t i t i s n ecessa ry to d e a l with, the o th e r a s p e c t tou ch in g on the n o t ic e o f a p p e a l. This is f o r the obviou s reason th a t i f th ere was no r ig h t o f appeal as h e ld by the lea rn ed s in g le ju d g e , the n o t ic e o i ap p ea l f i l e d was n ot p rop er and hence o f no le g a l e f f e c t . In the circu m sta n ces, we th in k w ith r e s p e c t* t h a t the s t r i k i n g o u t o f the n o t i c e o f appeal was c o n s e q u e n tia l to th e view taken on the r ig h t o f a p p e a l. F in a lly , there is the is su e o f c o s t in which Mr. Tonga and M r, Mbwambo were h e ld by the lea rn ed s in g le judge p e r s o n a lly l i a b l e , j o i n t l y and s e v e r a lly fo r two c o u n s e l. Mr. T en ga's com plain t was based on two grounds. F i r s t , th a t i t was n ot shown b e fo r e the le a rn e d s in g le judge th at the c o s t s were p r o p e r ly in cu rre d o r th a t n e g lig e n c e was a t t r ib u t e d to the c o u n s e l. S econd, th a t the co u n se l were condemned to c o s t s p u n it iv e ly w ithout b ein g giv en the o p p o rtu n ity o f b ein g h ea rd . M r. M aira, learn ed co u n s e l f o r the respondent ap p aren tly conceded th at there was no b a s is shown f o r .../1 2 12 holding the advocates personally lia b l e . From the ruling o f the learned sin g le judge, apart from the fa ct that the costs were asked fo r by counsel for both p a rtie s , the reasons are not apparent* We think, with respect, that had the learned sin gle judge considered these fa cto r s , he would have come to a d iffe re n t conclusion with regard to the c o s ts . A ll in a l l th erefore, the ap plication fo r reference is dism issed. I t is however ordered that the order fo r costs charged personally against the advocates, Mr, Tenga and Mr. Hbwombo is quashed and set a sid e. Costs are granted to the respondent. DATED at DAR-ES-SALAAM th is 20th day o f March, 2Q03. D.2i« LUBUVA . 5 JUSTICE OF APPEAL' J.A . MROSO JUSTICE QF APPE& ' E.N. MUNUO JUSTICE OF APPEAR I c e r t if y that th is ie & true copy o f the origin a l* ( i EJA ) SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR