19931022 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE . ;.... r..:IGTi COM OF TANZ.AlUA Kr Diu1 ES SALA.AN CIVIL CL8:D} NO• 199 OF 198:; BENWELL E]:TGHlT:!]I.J.lS LTD • 4 ♦eo• o PLJu:•r I:B'F c 6 • • / VERSUS .THE .BJAPJ) OP 1l'~tUf:lrEES OF TIIE NATIONAL PilOVIDE:rJll F(mD • • • ••• ,. • •· D1.'i'f':8:;WAl'Tr RU L l1L..Q. On the 21st Janun;r;r, 1993 when this case W2,S before nzy- late leorned brother, Ru.bamc., J,. If.Lr .. Mbt·.t::i., leaxnea. Advocate for the defendant raised his client ts reservations conc::.xning the cona.ucr'c of the trial of this oaDe. He t~.ld the oourl tbat ho had instructi~~ from his clients to rec.£1..1.e:::rc..,the trial Jud.go to hn-ve tho case transferred to another Judge becai;.sc his clients felt tha:~ if the case cont:Lnued before the said Judge they would not have fe:t oonf'ortable~ They felt tha:t they would 11ot have received fair jtJ.f:f~ioe. Af'tcr hoaxing Mr,. Uzanda. learned COLU1Sol for the plaintif'f'?s, as well the ·1earned Judge felt obliged to ·diseiu.alify himself from further conduct of thic case,. Ultimately. this co.so wos fixed before me fo::- hea.ring.. Mr. N.bi.zy-a has proposed that tili::i os.oo tried de novo i th2..t ·bhe, :reason for tirl.s application is that the def.ondnnt a had in the oouJ;'ae of the pxooe~1.gs I. .P1dioated that they hnd 11.0 0011fidonoe in tho la.to, the Hon, ·M.r Ju.stioe Rubama. Thnt h:i. □ hnv"ing dj_3;:-pn.lified l:.i1.1sol:f should be ' su:f-fioient ground for ·~ho cn::::e to be heard .9-..0 novo.- Mr.., Uzanda ba:::: oome with a different propocal, thD.:t we cont:i..l'.D.le froru where ·the trinJ. hnd. renohed ccco.rcling to tho :i;::rooccdings d ·bho time the late Rubama, J., disrualifiod hirJool:f Mr. 1Jznnda hc'ld applied 1 tha·b the t0atimony of stm-rn.rt Mlnngt a (DW.1) ohould bo struck 0ut beoause it was whol];y- hea:r:scy o·i.,-1.d01;co 1 :re:forri.ng to ~ on evidence, 9th edition regardilig ::icotion 60 of the Indian Evid.011.cc Act which he said is in Pn.ri lfate:rin with ou.x section 62 of tho Eddcnco Act. M:r Mbuyn. q.ia. not responc.l h"'lri1eclidol3rf imrtearl he subrnHteJ ·chat he be given time till the following clcy (30/12/1~92) ·l;o Cfivu appr0pria-be replies to 11:T.r,, u,~t s submissions ... This w;;.o :,.1ot to be i for th~ case was next before the Juctge on 14t1: Jahun:i:y, 1993 when Mr.· Mbuya raised his ~lient."a f'ecli1'l.g:3 3bou·i; their apprehension of' the wrrg the case was being triocl, 2 H Mr. Uznnda' s submissions axe uphelrl 3 then Mr~ I,ipuya will be . oalled upon to mclrn "tho :Julmisoion:.1 l~o W2'S expecJ.;e:1 to mnke on the 14th January, 1593, According to I11r. Uzand-:1 the t:rial shot,.lrl oo::r'cinuo from whex0 it had reached becw..100 o:;:'. :con.sons, most o:l ,·rhich I oonsicler guito 1.r.z.,allevant at this stage, a..."'.ld the;t lo not need ru.cb. attention;- Suf'-.fioe H to say tho:t ho has Gubmi t.;0cl that ~fr. I•Jb..iya has of-fared no ground ever for his contention,. F:.rstl~r, 1JOC(:Llso tb.e applica:Gion bei'ore the late Judge never indice.tocl spoci:fic c,ots o:Z the Judgo 1~oh were objected. to. I think tho late Judge 0011,sidered this aspect$ and he undo:rsoorecl 1.1,ck of suf:'icient c;1uso when he obso:rved in his order that,_ fl I accept the application made ~s of c-: very soxious natuxe 1 I further f'in::l ·;;hc(t the serious oh;:i,lle11ge or questioning of the integ-.cit;:,i: Mel inpartialit:r of tho court is on no , material.,•.,.... • • wore feeling that · a PGriy- no;y- not receive' not receive justice n•or.1 tb.e court withou. :ouch more does not deserve to lJo trea.ted· 71i,th ruzy- serioulrl'l.ess j rnthc:r it deserves 'to be trentecl 11".'.i.th uinost cont~mpt.,..o.,,,oo "· Even witl:J. such a st:rnng opinion 2.gcin::rb ·i;:.20 nlJ'ti~ication; the late Judge fow'lcl it honou.xr.1ble to allow ·i;ho o..r,plicc.:t~on because at issues was- ntrust nnd co11.f'ic,011ce in tb.c open.'1oss c,ncl impo.rtia:ity of the couxt. Ttis na.s to bo given high p:rioxit;rsH 11 sufficient So the question of •. ....lf'J.~~...-,,;., cause c,:r othorwiae w,2s cleu~t with a11cl decid.ed lJy rrw lnte hro-:;b.e:r Jur:'.r;e. Thnt iosue c:-:.;.-lnot 110\r be re-opened for now cons~do:r::.:tion., SimilW:'ly, Kir, Uz2ncla 1s conte.rrbi0n that Mr,. llfuuyat s applio::::~ion ouc:ht to have 'heo:1 oupportod ·t.y n.ffir::.nvit 1,ras raised ~eforo tho late Juclge whc- did !lo·;; :fi;.1c."':. it nccc:::sr:.:cy -~o direct learned defence ootmsel on tho linoc su(s'gootcrl by fir,. Uzund.a, I. do not think we can dGlv-e into tJ~_nt isoue J.:o:ro r.ow ~-lithout wronYlJ:;y- puxportiri.g to revir:10 ·~.h., o:rder by which tho l0to Judge disqo.1a.li:fi0e, lri.mself-oc . Thero is more force ~n the third crou.nd i1: Mr, Uzn.nda's submission, where he conJ1H.mdG thnt uncler o. 13,B,. 10 this court 11.fi.l.3. power, even without 00111:1U.1"bing the pG.rti9G, to 11roceed wi"ch the suit from the stnge it has ro:-:c.hod+ ,· 3 My reading of 0~ 18,R,10 (1) creates impression that the power is discretio11c-i.r.ve For it pr0vid.es, ns for as the snr;ie is relevant he:re, .thats- ''R.10 - ( 1) where a Judge..., 00 0 is prevented by death, transfer or other cause f'ror.i conclucling tho trinl of :1 suit, his '• successor r.w deal with any cvicloncc or ne!lornndum tclcc down or made under the foregoing rules 2,s if aucll evidence or memorandum hacl been taken or r.lo.dc b,y l:i~.1 or under his direction under the sc1itl rules nnd ~ procood w:tth the suit f'ror:1 the stage at wliich his predecc;,ssor loft it 1r (Underscoring is mine) The word 11rany 11 in this order loaves no doubt thot the power is a· disoretiona:cy one; it must be e:rnrcised judicially. In ey view, the exercise of that power will on]y be f?,ir if the patj;ies to the· suit are, as in the instant case, g:i.ven an opportunity to be heard before a decision is nade~, 'Now what is the import of 0.18,R 10? We 0~1 find guidance on the application of' these provisions f:rora a commentary on the Indian Code of Ci-v.i.1 Procedure b-.1 M.. c. Slcar, Rni :Sahadur, 8th Edition.; - The ·authors 01' this book have t1ad,e a comenta:r;y. on the 0,.18l!R 15(1)' at P• 1436, 1437 of the Indian Code of Civil hocedurc which is in Pa.ri M~teria with ou:r o.18;R 10(1)~ They seyi- ".u . . ue in view of the ·decisions in ,Afral'Wlllissa v• .Al ils, 8 A. 35,,: and J~gr~.1 V~ lfarn~ 7 11.. G57, w;iero it was held that Whtll'e a J~e n.ft er having record.eel the evidence was I, removed_ and a new Judge -cru;ie, the trial be.for: the first -Judge ·was a.rbo_rtivs, .These cnses _were clisaussed in the . Jrull Bench case; of Jadu F,ai Vft Kaniznk 13 ~ 576:i and it was ruled that the new .:iudge had ·jurisdiction to deliver judgment a.ft-er hearing o.rgur.ien';s on both sicles on 't,he evidence taken I by his predesso:r-. o. o .. • 11 I mey add that, according t_~ the other pc.rt 9:f "':bis connentaiy, a successor Judge has power take over n oc.se :i,i1. ·which all tho evidence ,I has aJ.ready been recorded a~d final subtti.ssions r;1ade, and he L1DiY \ p~oceed to deliver judgnent~ '• 4 It is iraporkn'G to ;.1oto thc:t; •in Jor.;:r;,,n '.J, }forc.in (supr2), ·tho Judge who recorc.oc.l mriclenco we..s reuoved 2m1.: ~, ::ow Judge was nppoi2rlied, The words "the Juclzc who rocorclod Gvid01~co w:::i,s renovecl-o .. ., , n :iJJ.plies that he w::i,s rcnovecl f:ro::i t).:o ,off ioo of rt. cT,ir]co. ReLir:,viil& r.. Jnc.7.30 f:rom of';f'.:ice is rn-t ~\ liglrt nc;ttor; nonetholo:::0 the trial he preGided before he was rencved. ~-1.:i.,s i~ot sk:.rted n, new lJj" tho Judge who l:>'Uooeodod him. L1 tho instc'lrb case tho ·t;rinl Ju.d-13'0 w.:::s · ,:ot rcr:io\rccl f:ror.: office.- Re just found it pTo:Jc:r to clim:ruri.lify l~it:fll?.l:i:' s rstrosdn:; -that the grow1ds 1-1hich were :telied 011 by ·c l.e defei .:,.l?.;;..;:l; ::i wore ±'liwsy,. 'lJ:rue_, IndiaJ.1 oou.rc clocisions :.1ave no rJJ.t:·.ori·ty over this oou.r·l;i H is now settlec1 p:ro.ctice, however, t).1;:-:t ibm tllie.-courl a-;y~ nc1.opi; such decisions whore -~Ley cleo..l with provifj.rJ;:(s of l.1.w which nre identical to uur own, In such CJ,ses fo:re~&1 Jud.gi.1Gnts h2ve persuc..oive nuthori-ty, It is frora t;_:do point of v"'iew tl1at I oonsiclc:r tho oo □cen-~r.ry on the - Indian Code of Civil Proc0dure to be c_ru.iiio relcs(1nt to tho decision in this matter\'A As I n.:;rce en-are],y w:'.th azposition of the lo.w in that cor,uontn1. ;y-, . I holcl thcii tho li:r'ce J:.l:r., Justice Rub::-:.ma I s disqualifying 1:inself cbes not constitute su.:f:ficient e-round :for ·the t .J_Jrooeodin.gs to stnr'G do novo., I he,ve ron.ohecl tJ:d.s conclusion wi·bh the firra view that there nothing in l\1:r., ITh1.fC. 's inst:ractions, nt !~t he did not scy so$ w.: ·.ioh sug5osts thnt 0"vido1100· ·whio;:. was :recorded by the late Judge riJJbntlc', differs in eJ"JjT r;i:.1:co:ric.l 0,speot froiil ·l;be testimo1w of tho ~.ro.:rious witnesses who l:1.,.vo cuvun this case so far, · · f In the result tho proposal by Mr,. El:n.,..y0, 7 leD,.,.."'necl ooµnsel for the defendr.:.nts t)}.c,·~ tho case stn.i.--t cl<::_~~ ic d:i.s.G:i.soed. The tricl shall ., now· proceec1 :f~cof..l where it hclLl To::c.'1.nc.1.. 1vb.e;1 ·i;ho lo.to Th.i.bw:iii,, J . disqualified himself'+ Delivered in Dur os sn,lr.w.t1 on tho 22nrl oi Ootober 1 1993. Mx.., Uzando., AdvocG.to. Mr.• Mbuya, Advoco:te.