BONIPHACE MJENJWA 13 OTHERS V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR REVIEW NO. 27933 OF 2024 (Arising from the Ruling delivered on 29/8/2024 by Hon. E.M. Kassian, Deputy Registrar, in Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023) BONIPHACE J. MJENJWA……………….………………………….1ST APPLICANT S.A.R. MWAMBIJE ……………………………………………….…...2ND APPLICANT O.H AKIDA………………………………………………………….…..3RD APPLICANT S. MWANDENUKA…………………………………………………….4TH APPLICANT V.N MMAKASA………………………………………………………….5TH APPLICANT J.J KIKWEMBE………………………………………………………….6TH APPLICANT E. MSHIHILI…………………………………………………………….7TH APPLICANT M.O. PINDA……………………………………………………….…….8TH APPLICANT M. KAMBI……………………………………………………………….9TH APPLICANT IDDI M. MASOKOLA (The Administrator of the Estate of the late M.I MASOKOLA) …………….……………….10TH APPLICANT DAINES M. KASONGWA (Administratix of the Estate of the Late T.A. KASONGWA…………………………....11TH APPLICANT ASHURA H. JUMA (Administratix of the Estate of the Late H. JUMA) …………………….……………….12TH APPLICANT JOSSO S. MWAJOJO (Administratix of the Estate of the Late C.K MWAJOJO) …………………………….13TH APPLICANT MATHIAS C. MAYAKA (Administrator of the Estate of the Late C.S MAYAKA) …………………….………..14TH APPLICANT VERSUS TANZANIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED…... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date of last Order: 03/2/2025 Date of Judgment: 24/3/2025 B. E. K. Mganga, J. Brief facts of this application are that, on 4th August 2023, Boniphace Mjenjwa and 13 Others whose names were undisclosed, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 against Tanzania 1 Telecommunications Company Limited, the herein respondent. On 27th December 2023, they filed amended Notice of Application disclosing the names of the above-named applicants. In the said amended Notice of Application, applicants had four prayers namely: - 1. That, this Hon. Court be pleased to issue an order to the manager NBC Corporate Branch to pay the Applicants interest for the period starting 12/1/2018, in compliance with Court order dated 10/9/2009 in Revision No. 26 of 2009 between Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited and Consolidated Holding Corporation versus Boniphace Mjenjwa and others. 2. That, this Hon. Court be please to summon the respondent to appear before this Hon. Court and inform this Hon. Court if there is any matter pending in respect of Revision No. 26 of 2009 between Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited and Consolidated Holding Corporation versus Boniphace Mjenjwa and others to prevent this Hon. Court to issue an order to the Manager NBC Corporate Branch to release the Applicants’ money. Tshs. 617,480,675/=(sic) kept as security in Fixed Deposit Receipt Account (FDR) in compliance with Courts order dated 10/9/2009 in Revision No. 26 of 2009. 3. That, if there is no any matter pending, this Hon. Court be pleased to issue an order to the Manager NBC Corporate Branch to release the Applicants money Tshs. 617,480,675/= (sic) kept as security in Fixed Deposit Receipt Account (FDR) and transfer the money to this Hon. Court’s Accounts/Decree holders. 4. That, if there is no any matter pending this Hon. Court be pleased to issue an order to the Respondent to implement the Court’s Order dated 20/7/2009 in “uamuzi wa ukazaji deni tuzo”. 2 In the said amended Notice Application, applicants indicated that grounds for the aforementioned prayers are that: - 1. On 20/07/2009 and 11/08/2009, the defunct Industrial Court of Tanzania (Hon. Justice E.L.K. Mwipopo, J (JCM), executed the award in Inquiry No. 57 of 1997 in respect of 14 OTTU leaders (the Applicants) as follows: - i. The Court ascertained and confirmed the amount of Tshs 617,480,675/=(sic) to be paid to the Applicants being salaries from the date of termination up to 31/7/2009. ii. Physical reinstatement of the applicants and payment of salaries until their employment is lawful terminated. 2. On 10/9/2009, the Court stayed implementation of the orders given on 20/7/2009, pending determination of Maombi Ya Marejeo Na. 26 ya mwaka 2009 baina ya Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited and Consolidated Holding Corporation versus Boniphace Mjenjwa and others and ordered the Tshs 617,480,675/=(sic) be kept as security in Fixed Deposit Receipt Account (FDR) and the Applicants be paid the accrued interest. 3. The Court held categorically that the Tshs 617,480,675/= (sic) kept in FDR Account belongs to the Applicants. 4. To dated there is no any matter pending in relation to Maombi Ya Marejeo Na. 26 ya Mwaka 2009 baina ya Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited and Consolidated Holding Corporation versus Boniphace Mjenjwa and others. 3 In opposing the application, respondent filed the notice of opposition and counter affidavit. After hearing the parties, on 29th August 2024, Hon. E.M. Kassian, Deputy Registrar, delivered a ruling stating that it is unknown as to whether, the said application was execution because applicants prayed the Court to order the NBC Branch Manager Corporate to release the money. In the said ruling, the Deputy Registrar observed and stated that, applicants are praying to enforce the decree which is not in conformity with Order XXI rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2019 as it is not clear which decree is being executed amongst the decrees namely, Inquiry No. 57 of 1997, Revision No. 26 of 2009 dated 10/9/2009 or Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 2018 because, they stated that they were given right in those cases. With those observation, the Deputy Registrar concluded that the application is incompetent for contravening the provisions of Order XXI Rule 10(2) of Cap. 33 R.E. 2019(supra) because the application is not executable. Consequently, the deputy Registrar struck out the said application. Applicants were aggrieved with the said ruling hence this application for review. In the Memorandum of review, applicants raised four (4) grounds namely: - 4 1. That, the Honourable Deputy Registrar erred in law and facts in holding that Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 contravened Order XXI Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. That, the Honourable Deputy Registrar erred in law and facts for failure to consider that applicants did comply with Order XXI Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code in UAMUZI WA UKAZAJI WA DENI TUZO dated 20/7/2009 and AMRI dated 11/8/2009 (Hon. E.L.K. Mwipopo, J). 3. That, the Honourable Deputy Registrar erred in law and facts for failure to take into consideration the fact that applicants in Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 were asking this Honourable Court to issue an order to the Branch Manager NBC Corporate Branch to release the Applicants’ monies Tsh 617,480,675/=(sic) kept as security pending revision in a Fixed Deposit Receipt(F.D.R) Rolling or renewable each three months cycle by the Court’s Order dated 10/9/2009. 4. That, the Honourable Deputy Registrar erred in law and facts for failure to consider the fact that applicants were asking to be paid interest in Maombi ya Marejeo Na. 26 of 2009 for implementation of Court’s order as per UAMUZI WA UKAZAJI WA TUZO dated 20/7/2009 and AMRI dated 11/8/2009. In opposing this application in compliance with the provisions of Rule 27(8) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007, respondent filed the Statement of response. When the application was scheduled for orders, both learned counsel for the applicants and the respondent prayed the application be disposed by way of written submissions, as a result, an order was issued to that effect. In compliance with the said order, Mr. Evans Nzowa, learned Advocate on behalf of the applicants on one hand and 5 Emmanuel Mkonyi, learned State Attorney for the respondent filed their respective written submissions. Arguing the 1st and 2nd grounds, Mr. Nzowa submitted that, applicants complied with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 10(2) on 17th March 2009 when they lodged Form CC10 wherein they prayed for assistance of the Court for reinstatement of 14 EX OTTU members and arrest and condemn C.E.O, HR Manager and Principal Legal Officer of the respondent as civil prisoners. He added that, in the said CC 10, applicants also claimed to be paid TZS 897,902,268.00 being salaries from the date of termination. Counsel further submitted that, in the said CC 10, applicants were executing an award issued in “UCHUNGUZI WA MGOGORO WA KIKAZI NA. 57 WA MWAKA 1997 baina ya ATHUMANI KUNGUBAYA NA WENZAKE (482) na KAMPUNI YA SIMU TANZANIA(TTCL)” that was issued by Hon. Mlewa DC. Mr. Nzowa added that, following the said application for execution, on 20th March 2009, Hon. E.L.K. Mwipopo, J (as he then was), issued an order to the respondent to submit their response, as a result, respondent filed her response together with a summary of TZS 617,480,675.00, the amount owed to the applicants after deducting terminal benefits paid. He went on that, on 20th July 2009, Hon. E.L.K. Mwipopo, J (as he then was) delivered “UAMUZI WA UKAZAJI DENI TUZO” whereby respondent was 6 ordered to physically reinstate applicants and pay them TZS 617,480,675/=. Mr. Nzowa further submitted that, respondent was aggrieved with the aforementioned decision, as a result, she filed revision No. 26 of 2009, the parties being Tanzania Telecommunication Corporation Company Limited v. Boniphace Mjenjwa and Others. He also submitted that, applicants raised a preliminary objection against the respondent in the said revision application. That, on 10th September 2009, the full bench of the Industrial Court of Tanzania, based on the said preliminary objection, ordered respondent to deposit, as security, TZS 617,480,675/= in the bank in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt(F.D.R) rolling or renewable after every three months and the interest thereof paid to the applicants until when it will be decided otherwise by the said Industrial Court of Tanzania. He added that, on 12th October 2009, respondent instructed Branch Manager NBC LTD Corporate branch to open a Fixed Deposit Account for TZS 617,480,676/=. He went on that, on 24th February 2010, the revisional panel of the full bench of the Industrial Court of Tanzania dismissed Revision Application No. 26 of 2009 filed by the respondent. Counsel for the applicants further submitted that, respondent was aggrieved with the judgment and orders in revision application No. 26 of 7 2009, as a result, she filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2010 but the same was dismissed on 17th October 2011 by the full bench of the High Court. He further submitted that, following the dismissal of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010, on 6th January 2012, Hon. Gwae, the Deputy Registrar (as he then was), issued a garnishee order absolute for the release of TZS 617,480,675 plus interest of 24,491,214.85. He also submitted that, on 30th January 2012, Hon Gwae, the Deputy Registrar(as he then was), stayed execution in respect of the release of TZS 617,480,675/= pending an application before the High Court Main Registry after the respondent’s application to lift the garnishee order absolute but ordered the release and payment of TZS 33,510,969/=to the applicants as the said money was interest and future harvest of interest until ordered otherwise by the appellate Court. Mr. Nzowa also submitted that, on 22nd December 2016 applicants filed an application for the release of TZS 617,480,675/= and interest accrued amounting to TZS 54,194,734.40 but on 28th December 2016 respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 95 of 2016 before the court seeking stay of execution but the same was struck out on 13th December 2017 (Hon. S.S.S. Kihio, J). That, on 21st June 2018 applicants wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar informing him that there is no any matter pending before any court and prayed for 8 necessary order. It was further submitted by Mr. Nzowa on behalf of the applicants that, on 3rd July 2018 Hon. E.G. Mrangu, Deputy Registrar closed the file “MAOMBI YA MAREJEO Na. 26 of 2009 and ordered applicants to bring a proper application. Counsel also submitted that, on 28th November 2022, applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022 but this Court (Hon. Mteule, J) struck out the application directing the applicants to find a suitable way of making such an application pursuant to the order of the Deputy Registrar to make proper disclosure of information to enable the Court to proceed with execution. He added that, on 15th May 2013(sic) in MAOMBI YA MARUDIO NA 530 YA 2022, that was filed by the applicants, this Court (Hon. Mteule, J held that “waleta maombi wanashauriwa kutafuta utaratibu muafaka wa kuwasilisha Mahakamani maombi yatakayowezesha kukaza hukumu kama ilivyoelekezwa na Naibu Msajili katika Shauri la Kazia Hukumu Na. 26 la 2009.” Counsel went on that, based on the foregoing, applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 that was struck out by the Deputy Registrar hence this application for Review. Mr. Nzowa concluded that, the Deputy Registrar erred in holding that Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 contravened Order XXI Rule 10(2) of Cap. 33 R.E. 2019(supra) because, 9 applicants had already filed form CC 10 in compliance with the provisions of Cap. 33 R.E. 2019(supra). Arguing the 3rd and 4th grounds, Mr. Nzowa submitted that, the Honourable Deputy Registrar failed to take into consideration that applicants were praying the Court to issue an order to the Branch Manager NBC Corporate branch to release applicants’ money amounting to TZS 617,480,675/= kept as security in a Fixed Deposit Receipt by the Court’s Order dated 10/9/2009 in MAOMBI YA MAREJEO NA. 26 YA MWAKA 2009, UAMUZI JUU YA PINGAMIZI LA AWALI. He added that, the Deputy Registrar failed to consider that applicants were praying to be paid interest as per the decision of the Court dated 10/9/2009 in “MAOMBI YA MAREJEO NA. 26 YA MWAKA 2009, UAMUZI JUU YA PINGAMIZI LA AWALI” and for implementation of the Court’s order dated 20/7/2009 to reinstate physically the applicants until when they will be legally terminated as it was ordered in “UAMUZI WA UKAZAJI DENI TUZO” dated 20/7/2009 and Amri dated 11/8/2009. For the foregoing, counsel for the applicants prayed the application be allowed, Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 be restored and determined on merit. In his written submissions on behalf of the respondent, Mr. Emmanuel Mkonyi, State Attorney raised a preliminary objection that the 10 application at hand does not meet the criteria for review. He also submitted that, pre-requisite conditions for review to be filed are that, (i) the impugned decision must be based on manifest error on the face of record resulting into miscarriage of justice, (ii) the party must have been deprived a right to be heard, (iii) the court’s decision must be a nullity, (iv) the court that delivered the impugned decision must have done so without jurisdiction and (v) the decision must have been procured illegally or by fraud or perjury. To support that position, State Attorney cited the case of Jireys Nestory Mutalemwa vs Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (Civil Application No. 570 of 2023) [2024] TZCA 133 (23 February 2024). He further cited the case of Mirumbe Elias vs Mwita vs Republic (Criminal Application No. 4 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 275 (28 October 2016) wherein principles underlying review were stated by the Court of Appeal. Having pointed out conditions for review, counsel for the respondent submitted that, the Honourable Deputy Registrar correctly held that the application that was filed by the applicants was not clear as to which decree they sought to be executed. He added that, the Deputy Registrar was justified to strike out the application because it was incompetent. He further submitted that, applicants sought to execute the decision in the Inquiry No. 57 of 11 1997 that was quashed and set aside on 19/12/2008 by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008. Resisting the 1st and 2nd grounds, learned State Attorney submitted that, applicants are not entitled to payment of TZS 617,480,675/= emanating from Trade Inquiry No. 57 of 1997 that was quashed on 30th July 1999 by this Court (Hon. Mlay, J, Makaramba, J and Nyerere, J) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008. Learned State Attorney further submitted that, in the said Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008, this Court set aside (i) the decision of the panel of the Industrial Court of Tanzania in UAMUZI 13/2006 of 6/6/2008, (ii) the decision of Industrial Court of Tanzania dated 27/10/2000 (Hon. Mwipopo (JCM) and (iii) the order of this Court dated 2nd September 2008 that required respondent to satisfy the decretal sum of TZS 383,271,571.40. He added that, the decision of this court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 has not been reversed by the Appellate Court and concluded that, execution applications that were filed by the applicants thereafter are void on reason that the court is functus officio. Arguing against the 3rd ground, Mr. Mkonyi submitted that, the application by the applicants arose from “UCHUNGUZI WA MGOGORO WA KAZI NA. 57 WA MWAKA 1997 baina ya Athumani Kungubaya 12 Wenzake (482) na Kampuni ya Simu TTCL” that has been already nullified and set aside because the decision which allowed applicants to be paid TZS 617,480,675/= was quashed and set aside in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008. He clarified that, on 20th July 2009 and 11th August 2009, the Industrial Court of Tanzania (Hon. Justice E.K. Mwipopo, the Chairman of the said Court, as he then was) executed the award in Trade Inquiry No. 57 of 1997 in respect of 14 OTTU leaders, the herein applicants but the said decision was nullified in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008. He further submitted that, there is no judgment and decree that are within the jurisdiction of this Court relating to Trade Inquiry 57 of 1997. He also submitted that, the prayer by the applicants that Manager of NBC Corporate Branch be ordered to pay interest from 12th January 2018 when they ceased to be paid that interest up to now, in compliance of the Court Order dated 10/9/2009 in Maombi ya Marejeo Na. 28 ya Mwaka 2008 is incompetent and not subject to execution. Resisting the 4th ground, Mr. Mkonyi submitted that, the Deputy Registrar did not error in law or in fact to consider the fact that applicants were seeking to be paid interest as per the decision of the Court in Maombi ya Marejeo Na. 26 ya mwaka 2009 dated 10/9/2009 and for implementation of Court’s Orders as per UAMUZI WA UKAZAJI WA DENI TUZO dated 20/7/2009 and AMRI dated 11/8/2009. Counsel 13 further submitted that, prayers that applicants were praying before the Deputy Registrar were already decided by Hon. Mlelwa in the case of Athumani Kungubaya and 482 Others v. Kampuni ya Simu, in Marejeo Na. 57 of 1997 on 30th July 1999 and Labour Execution No. 333 of 2015 by Hon. Lyimo who dismissed it for being time barred. He added that, applicants filed Execution No. 453 of 2018 but the same was struck out by Hon. W.S. Ngh’umbu, Deputy Registrar on ground that the decision in Revision No. 26 of 2009 that applicants were intending to execute was already quashed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008 dated 19th December 2009 hence there is nothing to be executed. Mr. Mkonyi also submitted that, applicants are doing forum shopping and misleading the court by taking advantage of lapse of time. He added that, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2008 the Court (Hon. Makaramba, J) noted that the herein applicants were wrongly paid TZS 503,953,491/= emanating from execution No. 7 of 2000 and the court did not issue an order of repayment based on the swahili saying, “kiendacho kwa mganga hakirudi hata mgonjwa asipopona”. He went on that; the court vacated the order that required respondent to deposit TZS 383,271,573.40 as security. Counsel for the respondent also submitted that, the decree was issued on 30th July 1999 and that, in terms of section 39(1) of the Civil 14 Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2019, an application for execution of the decree must be filed within 12 years. He further submitted that, applicants have attempted to file time barred executions namely Execution No. 333 of 2015, Execution No 400 of 2018, Execution No. 453 of 2018, Execution No. 252 of 2020, Execution No. 347 of 2020, Execution No. 440 of 2021, Maombi ya Marudio No. 530 of 2022, Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022 etc mentioning different dates of the decree. He added that, there is no decree that is existing that can warrant this court to issue execution orders in the application at hand until applicants successfully challenge the dismissal of Execution No. 333 of 2015. Counsel concluded that, the remedy available to the applicants is appeal and not review and prayed the application be dismissed. In rejoinder, Mr. Nzowa, learned counsel for the applicants in showing that this application is properly before the Court, cited the provisions of Rule 27(2)(b) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007 that provides circumstances for review to be filed. On the nature/ type of the application that was filed by the applicants in Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 before the Deputy Registrar, counsel submitted that, the said application was not execution application, rather, applicants were seeking Court’s orders to the Branch Manager NBC Corporate branch to release their money 15 amounting to TZS 617,480,675/= kept as security in FDR account as per Court’s order dated 10/9/2009 and payment of interest and reinstatement as per Uamuzi wa Ukazaji Denituzo dated 20/7/2009. Mr. Nzowa also submitted that, the Deputy Registrar raised an issue suo motto and decided it without affording the parties right to be heard hence good ground for review. I should point out that, in his written submissions counsel for the applicants did not mention the issue that was raised suo mottu by the deputy Registrar and decided without affording the parties right to be heard. Clarifying on the effect of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008, Mr. Nzowa admitted that, in the said Miscellaneous Appeal, the Court quashed the decision of the revisional panel in UAMUZI dated 6/9/2008, Maombi ya Marejeo Na. 13/2006 and the decision of Hon. Mwipopo (JCM) dated 27/10/2000. Counsel for the applicants strongly submitted that, the said Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008 did not quash the decision and the award in Trade Inquiry No. 57 of 1997 dated 30/7/1999. He further submitted that, interest is the right of the applicants emanating from the order of the Court in UAMUZI JUU YA PINGAMIZI dated 10/9/2009. Mr. Nzowa further submitted that, applicants were not privy to Execution No. 333 of 2015 and cited the case of Athumani Kungubaya and 428 Others v. Tanzania 16 Telecommunications Co. Limited and Another, (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2023) TZHCLD 1390(11 August 2023) to support his submissions. Counsel for the applicants further submitted that, the file relating to Revision No. 26 of 2009 was closed by Hon. Deputy Registrar E.G. Mrango on 3/7/2018 and ordered applicants to bring an application attaching all relevant documents. As regard to payment of TZS 503,953,491/= counsel submitted that, the said money was not paid to the applicants, rather, was paid to Athuman Kungubaya and Others in exception of the herein applicants. He went on that, the order of reinstatement of the applicants was not complied with. In his rejoinder submissions, counsel for the applicants conceded that, Maombi ya Marejeo Na. 13 of 2006, and UAMUZI WA UHAKIKI DENI TUZO NA UTEKELEZAJI WA JOPO LA MAHAKAMA KUU YA KUSIMAMISHA DENITUZO whereby TZS 387,493,268/40 was verified, were quashed by High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2008. Counsel for the applicants concluded that, after the said decision, applicants went back to the Court to execute their award of reinstatement. At the time of composing my judgment, I went through submissions of the parties and noted that, in rejoinder submissions, counsel for the applicants raised a new issue namely, that the Deputy 17 Registrar in his ruling raised matters which he determined without affording parties right to be heard. On the other hand, I noted that, in reply submissions, counsel for the respondent submitted that the court is functus officio without explaining how and why. I also noted that, in rejoinder, counsel for the applicants did not submit on that issue. I further noted that, there is a judgment of this (Hon. Mteule, J) dated 15th May 2023 relating to this matter. With those observations I asked both counsel to submit on those issues. In addition, I asked them to submit whether, this Court has jurisdiction over the matter and on the status of the ruling of Ngh'umbu registrar dated 31st March 2020. Responding to the issues raised by the Court, Mr. Nzowa, counsel for the applicants conceded that it was not proper for him to raise a new ground in rejoinder submissions. He therefore prayed that, the said ground be disregarded by the Court. Submitting in relation to the ruling of this Court (Mteule, J) dated 15th May 2023 Mr. Nzowa submitted that, the application was relating to reference and the court held that it has no jurisdiction. He added that, in the said application, applicants were praying the court to call for record of Revision No. 26 of 2009 and vacate the order that closed the said execution. He went on that, in the said application, the court held that it has no jurisdiction and directed applicants to follow what they 18 were directed by the Deputy Registrar. In his submissions, Mr. Nzowa concede that applicants did not appeal against the said ruling. Mr. Nzowa further submitted that, Revision No. 26 of 2009 was filed by the respondent against the decision of Mwipopo J, (JCM) dated 20/7/2009 in Uamuzi wa ukazaji deni tuzo. He also submitted that, applicants raised objection, as a result, on 10/9/2009 respondent was ordered to deposit TZS 617,480,675/= as security in FDR account renewable after three months as per order in Marejeo No. 26 of 2009. He further submitted that, on 16/2/2010 this Court issued its decision on Marejeo No. 26 of 2009 dismissing the application and ordered execution to be implemented. Mr. Nzowa also submitted that, respondent was aggrieved with the said decision, as a result, she filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010 but the said appeal was dismissed on 15/12/2011 by Hon Juma, Utamwa and Mtungi, JJJ. He further submitted that, the order requiring respondent to deposit TZS 617,480, 675 was made in revision No. 26 of 2009 on 10/9/2009 by Mwipopo, J(JCM), William and Mtiginjora. He strongly submitted that, that decision has never been vacated. Mr. Nzowa submitted that, on 3rd July 2018 Hon. Mrango, Deputy Registrar, in execution No. 26 of 2009, directed applicants to furnish facts that can enable the court to execute. Counsel for the applicants 19 submitted further that, applicants also filed Miscellaneous application No. 143 of 2022 seeking the court to call for the record of execution No. 26 of 2009 and vacate the orders which closed execution proceedings. He added that, on 28th November 2022, Hon. Mteule, J struck out the application on ground that applicants should disclose information sufficient to enable execution to be carried out. In his submissions, counsel for the applicants conceded that, according to the record in court, on 12 December 2022, applicants filed the notice of appeal to challenge the decision of this Court (Hon. Mteule, J) in Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022. He further conceded that there is no decision by the Court of Appeal in respect of the said notice of appeal. Mr. Nzowa went on to submit that, thereafter, applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2022 that was dismissed because this court (Hon. Mteule, J) held that it had no jurisdiction. He also submitted that, after Miscellaneous application 530 of 2022, applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 222 of 2023 that was struck out by Hon. Kassian, DR hence this application for review. Despite those submissions, Mr. Nzowa maintained that this court has jurisdiction over the matter. Mr. Nzowa further submitted that, on 3rd January 2012, Hon. Gwae DR (as he then was) issued garnishee absolute in Revision No. 26 of 20 2009 directing the branch manager NBC Cooperate branch to transfer TZS 641,971,889.85 into account No. 011103001244 owned by this court. He added that, on 30th January 2012, Hon. Gwae, DR (as he then was), in Revision No. 26 of 2009, stayed his order of the garnishee absolute. He also submitted that, on 31st March 2020 Hon. Ngh'umbu, DR, struck out the application that was filed by the applicants on ground that there was no decree capable of being executed. Responding to the issues raised by the Court, Mr. Mkonyi, State Attorney for the respondent, on the issue of functus officio, he conceded that in his reply submissions he did not explain why he submitted that the matter was functus officio. He admitted that, that was improper on his side. Elaborating the issue of functus officio, Mkonyi submitted that, this court (Hon. Lyimo, Deputy Registrar) in Execution No. 333 of 2015 held that execution was time barred. He added that, applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2023 before the Court of Appeal to challenge that decision. He went on that, the said appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal for hearing challenging the ruling of Hon. Lyimo Deputy Registrar and ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2023 by B.E.K. Mganga, J dated 11th August 2023 because the court dismissed an application for extension of time to file an application for review the 21 ruling by Hon. Lyimo, Deputy Registrar. Mr. Mkonyi submitted further that, applicants served the respondent with memorandum of appeal on 10th October 2023. He also submitted that, applicants filed execution No. 347 of 2000, Execution No. 400 of 2018, execution No. 440 of 2021 all before Hon. Ngh’umbu, Deputy Registrar, the executing officer, but all were struck out for being incompetent. On whether the court has jurisdiction, State Attorney submitted that, this court has no jurisdiction because there is a notice of appeal against the ruling of this Court (Hon. Mteule J,) in Miscellaneous application 143 of 2023. He submitted further that, the prayers in Miscellaneous application 143 of 2023 are related to this review application because all relates to revision application No. 26 of 2009. He strongly submitted that, this court cannot determine this application in presence of the notice of appeal that was filed by the applicants challenging the decision of this court in the said Miscellaneous application. Mr. Mkonyi also submitted that, the award that was issued in Revision No. 57 of 1997 was dismissed on 2nd November 2017 in execution No. 333 of 2015 by Hon. Lyimo Deputy Registrar on ground that the same was time barred. He went on that, applicants were aggrieved by the said decision, as a result, they filed Civil Appeal No. 22 600 of 2023 that is pending before the Court of Appeal. Based on that, Mr. Mkonyi strongly submitted this court has no jurisdiction and prayed the Court to dismiss this application. In rejoinder, Mr. Nzowa submitted that, in Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2023, the parties are Athmani Kungubaya and 428 others v. TTCL because applicants were not part to execution No. 333 of 2015 hence not part to the said pending appeal before the Court of Appeal. He also submitted that, three execution applications that were before Hon. Ngh’umbu were struck out hence the court cannot be functus officio. On lack of jurisdiction because of the notice of appeal challenging the decision by Hon. Mteule, J, counsel for the applicants submitted that, prayers in the said case are different from the application that led applicants to file this application for review. I have carefully considered submissions of the parties in this application and what was submitted before the Deputy Registrar. From submissions of the parties, it is clear that, applicants filed an application for execution before the Deputy Registrar, the Executing Officer. It is undisputed by the parties that, in 2022, applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022 before this Court seeking the Court to call for the record of Execution No. 26 of 2009 and vacate the orders which 23 closed execution proceedings thereof because execution was already done and applicants were being paid interest from the decretal sum and that there was no reason for closure of the matter by the Deputy Registrar. It is undisputed by the parties that, on 28th November 2022, this Court (Hon. K.T.R. Mteule, J), struck out the said application because it was not properly filed before the Court. In Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022, this Court (Hon. K.T.R. Mteule, J), observed that, there was no sufficient information hence restoring the application for execution will bring back the same hardship experienced by the Deputy Registrar when decided to close the matter pending applicants to bring sufficient information through an application. See Boniphace J. Mjenjwa & 13 Others vs Tanzania Telecommunication Company Ltd (Misc. Application No. 143 of 2022) [2022] TZHCLD 1105 (28 November 2022). It was submitted by counsel for the respondent that applicants filed the notice of appeal to challenge that order. It was conceded by counsel for the applicants that, on 12 December 2022, applicants filed the notice of appeal to challenge the decision of this court (Hon. Mteule, J) in Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022 and that, there is no decision by the Court of Appeal in respect of the said notice of appeal. 24 But, in rejoinder submissions, counsel for applicants took a U-turn view and submitted that, prayers in the said Miscellaneous application are different from the application that led applicants to file this application for review. With due respect to counsel for the applicants, I have read the said application and find that, the said application and the prayers thereof, are similar to the one that led to filing this application for review. It is my considered opinion therefore that, in presence of the notice of appeal that was filed by the applicants before the Court of Appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction over this application. It has been held several times by the Court of Appeal that, once a notice of appeal is duly lodged, the High Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. See the case of Serenity on The Lake Ltd vs Dorcas Martin Nyanda (Civil Revision No. 1 of 2019) [2019] TZCA 65 (12 April 2019), Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited vs Dowans Holdings (Costa Rica) & Another (Civil Application No. 142 of 2012) [2013] TZCA 437 (27 March 2013) and Mohamed Enterprises T. Ltd vs The Chief Habour Master & Another (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015) [2018] TZCA 280 (26 October 2018) to mention but a few. 25 I should point out albeit brief that, it was improper, in presence of the said notice of appeal, for the applicants to file another application before the deputy Registrar that resulted into this application for review. It is also undisputed that, after the said Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022 was struck out, applicants filed before this Court, Application for Review No. 530 of 2022 arising from Execution No. 26 of 2009, Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2022. One of the issues in Review No. 530 of 2022 was whether, the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar. After considering submissions of the parties, on 15th May 2023, this court (Hon. K.T.R. Mteule, J), delivered a ruling dismissing the application for want of jurisdiction as it was correctly submitted by counsel for the applicants. It is undisputed that, neither the applicants nor the respondent challenged the said ruling before the Court of Appeal. From where I am standing, I cannot vacate that ruling because I am functus officio. I am of that view because, applicants have filed this application seeking the court to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar similar to the one this court (Hon. K.R.T. Mteule, J) held that the Court has no jurisdiction. In presence of that ruling, my hands are tied up because, that position has not been vacated by the 26 Court of Appeal. In the said ruling, this Court(Hon. Mteule, J) made reference to its previous decision in the case of Sogea Satom Company vs Barclays Bank Tanzania & 2 Others (Misc. Civil Reference 15 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 475 (2 March 2022) wherein it was held that:- “…Except where the law clearly states otherwise, a decision or order rendered by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court is a decision of the High Court and may be challenges by way of an appeal, reference and/ or revision to the Court of Appeal or by way of review to the same High Court.” In the aforementioned review application No. 530 of 2022, this court (Hon. Mteule J) as pointed out hereinabove, concluded that, this court lacks jurisdiction. The said review application was between the parties in this application and emanated from the decision of the Deputy Registrar. As pointed shortly a while hereinabove, that ruling has not been challenged before the Court of Appeal or has not been reversed by the Court of Appeal. In presence of the said ruling, as I have pointed above, I am functus officio hence this Court lacks jurisdiction over this application. It was submitted by counsel for the applicants that, in Civil Appeal No. 600 of 2023 the parties are Athmani Kungubaya and 428 others v. TTCL because applicants were not part to execution No. 333 27 of 2015 hence not part to the said pending appeal before the Court of Appeal. I entirely agree with him on those submissions. For all what I have discussed hereinabove, I dismiss this application for want of jurisdiction. Dated at Dar es Salaam on this 24th March 2025. B. E. K. Mganga JUDGE Judgment delivered on this 24th March 2025 in Chambers in the presence of Evans Nzowa, Advocate for the Applicants but in the absence of the Respondent. B. E. K. Mganga JUDGE 28