19920519 TZHC Tanga

·"'•~, ,::', Co \ j Q_\ f nr' TI3 ::rrarr COURT OF' TAllZ.AJ.l!ll .AT T.ANGA :00. CIVIL .APPEAL lfO. 10 OF 1989 TBii CIJrIBPJ:li lJJJJ!ACfBll T.F • C• • • • •-.. • APF.tiu..AHT . v1msus / FLRUZI HGOI • • u • u • • • • • • • • • • • • •. • RDSFOl'D'.ENT JUD.GEM ENT This is an c'..l):;)ocl cc-ui.nst tho clcoision of' tl10 Tc.ngo. Diotrio'i Co1.:rt o.oolc.ring tho :)lc,oo of a_omicile of tbe l'/.Gsponc:1nnt for tl:-.o ::n,"TJ_)OSOG of gutting t:rr:volli11r~ t1ssistnnco 011 lo.:-.:-vo from Lis oraJ?loyor, tho Ap].)01lc;nt, to bo Jtusimbc Vill:.:c;o in K.igomo. Uo[!;io11. Mto1.· so holding tho t:r.ir,l ooirrt fUI,thox· hole~ tlu-;c tho Ilospondo11t ,me onti tlcd to n socond clnss fCJ.rv from 'lrJ.'l[)'., to Ilusimbc.. village ~ncl 1x·,ok, for bio 198.Q c.l111ual lioe.vo, from t;"c o.p1)cllc.11t. The otnJ.)l~-cr· WLts c.gg:ciovoc.. Ibnco this D,:pJ;:ocl. Tho uppollc:nt tbxough the ·soIVfccs of 1:/s K..,vuta., Mpnk.:Ir.c,rl t,; 0omp:.::.11y o.dvoct,tcs 1 ?:::\t1. origino.ll;y filccl o5.{}..-.t (C) g.t'Ot1l1d of c,:pl)v,:,l • !fowovor, on tho &y tho cp1x::Gl Wc1S ho~.ic1. l11r. Kc.vut~ r,,1Jc,~1cloncd. two (2) of thorn, o.nd. submi ttod. · 011 (,."I~otu.1& 11 2,3, 6, 7 nnu. O. Greunc-:0 2,3,6 o.ncl 7 wore o.rg..totl oolJ.ootivoly. J30for-c touciring, alboi t brio;fly on tho :i:::·.,o-to o:f t.hL case, I 1d.ll otrdef.t n:wc.y cloz.1 1li th c:ro1.ind Mo. 1 wltlcL touohoc on tbc jt11'iodiction of tJ_,,~ tricJ. court. In tbis @.'Otu1tl, it is oontonc1od l)y the r,ppolla.nt ti:ct tl.J.c trio.l court f1or:roc;. on n point of lcw r:;16. fr.ct in th::,t i·I; fd.lod to diomics tltc sii.i t on tbc grouncl so.me i'ii.~S frivilously fi1od wi thou.t OOlil~Qli:;:.110~ ,r.L th :i i ,. 2 - L In hia subrnisai.on on tbia. grOUl'.111 K:r .. K~tc. ~ubmittod that the dispute bet1-10en tl;e par·tiGs ;wa.s tk,t of om:ploye·r and em1Jlo-.rec • J3ecause •f this Nle,tionsbip, he arguecl. tb.2-t tho:i.r dispute was tt~ bab•ur dispute gov0rn0c1~ by the bmploythOn~ OrcU.11w,1100, Cap.366°. Proceeding on this basis, Mr. Kavuta. vehemently 2;.rgt1Bd of the Civil Prooodure Code 1966, t;20 Respondent fB-iled to ccm:,;,1;/ ·with the :prooodu.ral requirements laid c.ewn by s.130 of the S£:i.ic1 Ordinanoo. Ee accordingly submi ttad that failure to follow the provisions •f the Ordinance (Cap.366) rendcre& the whele trial & nullity. I .w:i,.11 cUepose of this argument by failing back on the judgement •f this court in the case of GE}lli,R/Ji X(Af-'J{jjTil'ii'G CO. LTD V • A.A. SRA.RIFfi' (1980} T.L.R. 61- A similar submised.on ims made before the late JJiron J, ,,hereby he ruled that fa.ilu.re to refer a dispute to a Labo~tr Officer under s.130 •f the Ordinc.1.11ce is not at all fatal t• the order of the court. A:fter all, as Mr. A1,2,ro, lea,rncd adv•oa.te for ths_, Respondent, rightly submi ttccl, none of the :provisions of the ·t, lrdinanco ho.vo ousted the jurisdici tion of tte courts. T!lis ground therefore fails. T'ac unc.isl,)uted facts of the 6;:;,so wl 1ic:: gave rise to t1:1is a.pppeal D,T-8 as fell0\1S: The Respondent ws,s omplOJDcl by the ap1Jellunt canpany in 1986 r.s a Tool Store Clerk. J3oth parties duly fillecl in the record of oral contract of serv:1cc, 9 wJ.1ic:1 ·wus ~nncxture J3 to tbe Plaint and. tcndo110cl in court as ::xh. P.2. 0-tl. t}-1.2.,t record. the Rosi.}ondent, who ha.d. j1..1.St oan:ploted his Socond.e..ry School :JJducati•n (Form IV), inclico.t·ccl t~1.:t b.o L.ails from Rigoma Region, Kli.AlmA DISTl1}CT, Rusimba Village. Ee declared his mxt-;of ki11 to be Ngowi Fo~i (father) and :Kari2,11n I'oruzi both •f P.,O. :Dene 89 T2,11ga. Suhse~iirntly the employer ,discovcrec'!. some anema.ly on the roc•rd •f orc.1 contrG.ct of service. The anomaly related to his hane District ·which was shown by him to be :rwanga. As thero is no such Dj.strict in K:i.goma Region, the employer demanded a clurifioation frcm him. Cio c:pla.nation wr.,s contc.:inec. in an affidavit s1'orn to by him. This affidnvi t was tondoroc~ i11 oourt by the appollc,nt as ::;xh. n.3. T'.i10 contents of the affide..v:i.t c1J.d •••••/3 - 3 - not 001rr.i.noc the A:ppol'.k',.nt, lThioh d.cciclod to tclro tho pluco af dor.tlcilo of tho Rooponc;_ont to b9 'fungn.. .AI3 c. r;:;sult of this doo:i:sion tho Rcoponckmt w::,o a.c1.o~ lo::i,vo trc:-rol [;llowcnco for his 19ns cm1unl lcc,vt,;,. for [.1CCOfding to "iho Pusc,stG..l Sorvioo Roe,ule,tiono 1 1984. i0s1.1Qc.1. by tro,SCOP01 -undcr s. D.1(b), an onr.9loyoo is anti tlcd to n. tr2.vol' wo.rrcnt on xoa·~r.:t ~ to txcvol I to llio plc.co of domicile. Aggriovcd by tho docioion of bis or:rplcycr tho Rcspai1clt:l1-:.t ,1ont to. the T1:':.11e,r, Diotrlct court soolci.ng rocl.rcso. Tho 01'llY bo110 of contcntio:n botwoon the pci"tios boforo tho ' m.strict 001.1:rt ·wrn:J tho o.ctu..':..1 :plc.co of domicile of tho Plaintiff/ . ' RoopomJ.ont. 'lllo tric,l court hold the plo.oo of il.omicilc to bo I Rt'!Simbc. v:illo.gu in Kigomn. Regi.oh. &moo tm :pr0::1ont a,::ppoa.l. Tho gist of the &"ricvunca of tho o.ppolknt in C'l'O'l,mo.n 21 3.6 Ii , a,11(1 7 of tho momorc,i1ch,'lll of 1,;,ppcal which wo:ro GX.3,i.10d togcthor is tl:tc~t the tricl 00tu:-t erred 011 the fncto i11 :fc.ilinr; to :ro,-1,ch o, I fi;.1dinc; thn t tho RospancJ.Dnt • s place of domicilo is Tu.ngn c.nd not R;;·oinibc, villr,go in Kigomn Roe;i.oh. Ih. &.vutc.- b'nVC the following tJ.u"Oo :ro .::o ons in su;pport of ttis oon-oontiona I I (.o.) TllGt th.ore is ovi&:mco to oh0w tk,t tho Rospo1:clont bc.d juct completed. cchool in Tm1.6 L t,nd. got cmp;Loyod by_ tho OJ?l)oJ.lcnt in Tc;lJGC: ciw. tb:-.t: bo wo.s born at Lushoto r:1.nd ;::,t tho time of hie ompl~111011t bo wc.s stc:~yinG with his po.rents at Tc,ne~,. To bim, tlillr0fo1"C, this· ovio.onco ·w:,,s enough to cct[:bJish toot tho Rospon(ont's domicile io To.ngn. ' (b} 'lh.r.t tho Roopondont failed to Q.V8 erodible evidence' to show tbr:.t hie pla.co of danicilo is Rusimbn. V'ilhco • (o) Tho.t tbo uffick:vi t roliod upor. by tho court to oc:tc-,blish too domicile of tho I10spondcnt shows ii: pc.rc:-erGph 2 •toot the p1i.1CO of clomio:i.lc of tl,.oir gxr:,ndf ·.th:.:r ob.o.ngvtl fl•oro Kigomc. to T...ilC,r,. · 4 To these seem:l:i.1;):s stronc reasons, I.!:r. Aka:ro submitted t:W.t there wa.'3 enou.::,-b. evidence on record to GUl)J?Orl the 2i.'1d.i:1:::; of fact by tho trial court tllat t:J.e Rospo::icle;.1t ir.:: clor,ri.ciled in -IC.i.:._;OiJa. traced this evidence L1 ·l;b.o recorcJ. o:c o:;:-al co;.--itract of ser-,tic::e, (E::h. P.2), and the cv-ide::100 of PW.2 lT0 md. Feruzi, the father of the appalla.nt. In thin appeal we arc faced with t:10 Ga:Je isaue. What it:.! the , clonrLcile of tho Res:9on,J.e:xl;? ~.r , . , trJehit . . . . i,as t.c.0 tr:Lll..l. cot.,1..r L'JJ.l 1 s <100:w:i.on il1 lioldi..°'lg on the fac·l;s, that it i8 Rtv-.:1imba Villag\3 i:1 Ki/~'Or::a ReGLon? I will start by statb.::; -~}20 J.a:tr as _it is 11.0,-r 01· at least as I U:'1dersta,1d it to be. What is. dom~i.cile? In ordinar;;r rarlance i·i; means a pe::s011 1s plac0 of residence. If we 1;ere to t:,'O by ·l;h:L:3 definition, :1avi-'.~r; in nLi.ntl that 'to reside I from 1-flicll: the woi-.a. 1 rcsiclence' o:d;;:i.nn:tes co;1monl;:r me.:~nn to li--ro _or havo one •a hono ill a cert2,i11 area, tl1011 t:10 domicile o:t t:10 Rcr;:;11onclent b Tal'lt.:,aa, I say so del:i.ber2.tely because t::1ere iG no c:r<Jdible eviclenco to oate,bl:i.sh evo.:.1. on a. ba.la;.100 of probabili tiec t:12.·~ the Re;.;;ponc~(Dt not even his f3.-l;h0:i.' \ has a raGidcmoe o:i.' ~.omo at Rusimba villac,-c OJ~ ai.JJ>vvlie:re :i.n IC-Leoma Recion. W'l1at ·cb.orn i:3 on :record is tll.z:-.t ·l;li.e;y have :celation;.:: j:,1 IG.c;oms. Region 2,nd. tll.ooo rolc-.-tiveu who u.i"'a five (5) :i.11 all, reside at Mwanga, and Uji,ji Q.l.10:.S of the Kizona/uji,ji tmn-iship. TL.is e1ddenco is obtaL"lecl from the Re3pohdent:!s 01,m af-fidavi t (E:ci.D.3). Goi.."1g by tb.is affidavit th.ere is no sin&Lc relative now rosicJ.i::ig at Ru.-:;imba. These five relatives and thej_1~ :relationship to Pff.2 in brae~ ts are,- ( 1) l:Iam.isi Ml.encl:.,, (first cotmj~.1) J (2) Salim 2,a,.lqi:d (brotl1eri.~ :i.n-:-la.w)J (3) Shabe.ni Hasoani (uncle)§ (4) Jarufi ~ (first ,cousion) ~1d (5) Dunia. Biel.a (relative}.. •... /5 5 I , I The affidavit f'U.t"ther stipulates in 1::0.raa 6,7 and 8 that Pifo2 JW,d in the i:aat been v:i.oitLv;. ti:a.ese relati,ros JGO keep alive the rela tionnllip a.nd tl1a t now Pff. 2 cannot tmvel because of old ar~'G -'.;b.e Rer:.11)pncl.ent has 11 roplaced 1t hiu for tho pi.,.:r11ose of "promot:i.11 6 aucll relations betl.r0011 tl:~G tHO places". TlliG piece of eviclcmce [~Gs to discredit bo-'cb. P'if.1 a~ncl P}T., 2 on thei:~ claim tb.at they i ' have a hoille or resid.enoo in a.l\Y" 1:iar.t of Kio;orra Region. If they co to Kieoma only to vioit their relat:i.v0r::; i-t ,:;,'Oes without seyil'l[;' ' that they have no home th.ere. To, vif,i t is to stay temporarily at a place a:nd/or wi ~.;ll a p,n·son with 110 into:..1·tio11 of livi.nc tb.ci"O • .While beinr; cros;::-:-e:x:a.m:bed bJr Mr. :V.aroi:::awe, £'or the Appellant f . dll.ring the. trial, PW.1 said.e "I had been bo:rn at Lusb.oto. I do:q.' t 10101-r how ~ fa·tl.J.er came to Ta:nga. I do"'1' t know when did :rrzy- fa thor come to Tan.;:;a• I schooled a·t; Cl.n:unba,'.J.mi Primary School and a.11 this tiii'18 qy father was in Tav:,<::a a.nd my mother also. They are 'still liiling in Tane;a. Ee lives in .a house ha had co constmtcted hi1110elf. I l_ive on nzy- own. I applied for the job while i.1-1 Ta.nga 11 • ,, This evidence clearly shows that 1both the Respondent and his father have a.n established resideuoe in Ta.nga and none in Kigoma Res~on, :i.nspite of RT.2 1s claim that he hao .:a set-tlement at Rusimba. 0.1 the evidence on J:'0001--c.1 thi~ oaru.1.o·t; be true becaWJe there ir:i nothi.i.1:; to i.."1dicate who is lo~ld.115 after that "settlement"• This evidence (of' P.i.2) a.e,-ai.11 iz :i.11 ,cr-.ri:.10 contradiction with the evidenoe of ~r.1. tba:l:i they go to Kigoma to visit rolatives. ' a.21d maintab the :rola. tio:c1Ship with those J.'(;)la tives in Kieonn town. If there was such a settlerne:1t then PiT.1 oould not have failed I to mention it for b.e claimcc1. that ithe:n he last visited Rusililba. Thio claim bristle wi·bh :falsehood too became _i,er lllidl. D.,, 3, tho sa:i.L1. g1"ai:1dfnther abond.oned Ru.sii:1ba and perm3,nently saJlitled in Ta.nca whe1-.e he eventually died in 1938. This flhotVJo", built early -t~s oentur-.1 by Pti.2's father who arrived at Ru-Jimba in the year 1900 (per Ex:h. D.3), • I . does not feature in the eVJ.dence 'of RI.2 who does not mention at aJ.l about his .father. ••••• /6 I 6 How ,ie come ba.ol<: to the basics. Wi.1a;c is domicile i.11 lau?· Uc got ·the followins def:i..i.1itio11 f-.com Ocboi--.;.1is '.A Concise !aw Diet iona:cy i, 5th edii. ion at ~[.i''J 1~ 5I 11 Demicile or domici11 Tho cou.,.ti...f in which a person is, 01~ iu iJ.roSumed -'i;o 'Qe, 1)3:cmanently- resiclent, the place of a' po:cso:c1•s 1X3J.."'ma.nent home. It cleP'.)nds on tho· plzy-sical fact of · residence pb.ts tlle intention of 1"0r:ninine"• The defini tio11 d.ven in llALSJ3ll1lY'S Lil.HS OF D"NGLAlTD, 3rd Eklition• IJ . 1 , I ' Volume 7, Lord. Simond.<J Edition, is_ the sa.r.10. It goes on to I , prcnride 011 l)ab~ 14 tba:c 11 dom:i.cil is 6B11G:i:ally identified with , home but whereas a peroon Illt\>' have OllO hooo ox- more than one, tho law req_uires him to have a tlomicii and one o:uy. Ii' the :person whoso domicil is in iGfJUC ha::J a l.16oi4cu100 in more tha.1.1 one cOtUltry it must be determined, in tho ligl~t of tho evidence addu.ced, 1rhich is his principal abode." The law G,,merally recog.1izes. two tyi:x3s of domcilst the I I domicil of oriGi,.-i and the domioil ,rl of', choice. It is now s0ttlod law that the law attribv.tes to ever-/' 1xn."'DOn a.t birth a domicil, I al1d this is what we -call -~ho domicil of ori;l·:Lu. . J .. ,,.._,.,. If one on his mm decides to chanc,-e the latter domi9il, lJ.o tb.en aog_l.UI'GS a nan dom:i.cil c..11.lod, the domcil of choice. T';.1.0 domicil of oriGin "I is retained until the acquisition, of a dom.icil of choice a11d it oe.:nnot be divested b-J more abo11d011me;.1t a.ncl :l.a never destroyed I though it_ rennins in a.ooya.nce during the continuance of tho domicil of choice. Ilowevor, it is nou se:ti;letl that a domicil of choice is lost by abondonment. The chi!:d born in uedlock :id> a livin8 father rocoivos the domicil of th0 ,,. fat\er a;~ the time of birth, In the , instant case there is no dippute on tho fact that the Res:pandent•G grandfather wari bon1 iri Zail"0 in 1858 a.;.1d ir,liiri.gra.ted to tlli.'.ih Tanganyika iu 1900,. IIe fir~Jc settled at Rusir.1ba villa.(;'0 1 Kibo11do District h1 ui1at is now ~gom Rer:;1.on. For the purposes ar the law, tb.erofore, t:10 domicil of X>ricin of th0 Rcspondcmt's gra.,"ldfatb.cr is Zaire (aD it is n~w l0:101n.1)11 Rusimba villas-a :l.11 :I. 7 Ta:1[:;m1;yilr•.a becaroo b.irc: domicil of choice, Tho undisputed cvidonco 0:1 l"Ocord ostabl:Lsho.J tJ.::.at he la.tor abo11clo210cl Ru.siwba and oarne a.."lld uettlod 110rmanontly in T,ltlC,'8,, The ovitle~1co is ::;ilo11t on whe;.1 this took :place but it ir:.: elem.~ that he diG0.. ic-1 Tanga in 1938 at the. Plf• 2 w~n.:Llo test::i.fy:L1r.; :_p.v-c :.1:i.r:1 a-::,"El as 58 yea:i.--:1 ,, old. This ·was on 7th Aixril, 1989, , A little arithmetic 1rlll J.oacl us to an ine-vi t2,ble co:c1olw.d.on that, P~i.2 was boxn in 1931. Th:i.s ll10c.Ul!J ·foa t at t:.20 ti;-,1.0 o:~ hio fe;l;h~r t fJ 0..02.-til lie i-ras only a nri;-10r oi" 7 years old. Rr, 2 never revealed who::i."O he vras bo1~1 or ,rlJ.Em hi8 father acquirecl hiu now domicil of ohoico of Ta113a. Tho btu"den ,; vmrJ on t:w plaintif:::' to cotablis::::. ~his. T:.10 only reasonable i:,1fcronc0 fo be drawn in -~b.e ci:rcv.11mtan.oes is that at the tiue of PW.2'u birth l1is place of donicil was ~do father's domicil of c:10icc which w·c1s Tm1{:,'<.i, a.ucl not Rur.::imba villa.::,-e. If ho has b0011 coh1c to Ru.s:i.mba in t;:.o i-:>aB·i; he wa~" coi::i-:; ' to visit ll.i.z rola·U·.--os. ITow tllo survivin-3 roln:t;j;~-c::; have aba..'lclonod Rusimba and a1--e J.)erma.nently l"Osidine within tll.e K.i5oma/Uji~ji township in IG.6--ona B , Dfr.1trict. o when tho Rosponclent was born ::d; Luohoto i.11 196.:..1, hirJ :place of domicil became Tan{.:,a ~.nd noJi; Rv.simba villagB or ICi3'0ma/Ujiji tovm. He is now of the age o2 mjority and as ho told the trial he fa rcsio.ing within the l'iLt:licip\a.ity of Ta11e;a L1del)endent of hio f'atho1'• H e n~ver led ~Jiir evidence to er;ta.bliah ' tlla.t he has aey rcsidenco i.11 any :i;nrt of Kieo,·,,a Region,. let ·a1oa~ Ru.'3imba villa.go. Ile :i.f.l only 1d.,sh1',1g th.at he had 0110. But, alas, if' wishes were horsos even becca,rs mi.-).lt ha.ire ridden, Hence, 011 tho evidence on record I a.m Ga;tisfied i' t:.1.at the trial cov..rt was 1rronc; in holdi.113 tha.J~ t?.co rilacc of origin of Jc1,.e Respondent is Rt.1Si,uha. ,\ I villa(;,'B and. not Ta.11 6n D:i.Gtrict vrJ.10:i.,e thorn fa llis l)rinci:i;al. abotle. 1 I accoro.inc;ly quash a::1d net a:::i(le that :C:tndi;.1r; of fact. ., iraD com.:µlai11i11;; that tb.e trial In ground No. 8 the ap1:iella11t oou.rt waG wrong to oder cos-ts in v:tow of tho 1.xrovisio1w of s.143 o:f -the 11\nployment 0rd:i.na.:100. To 'this :;devance I hold that as tho suit wo.s not file cl m1do:r the l)rovifJions of -tb.a:li Oro.:i.l--?.a:nce, the trial court was entitled i.11 ito ddiscroti-01-i which was rightly o;."'Orltscd., •••·•·.. ,/8 Date& 19/5/92 I . ~ For Ap:pollan-t t Acl.vocate11 j For Ros11ornlen:t: Ac'tvocate Ii co-rn.:i.T a Jud.8-er,mn t clo:!.iverc<.l in May, 1992 at Tang-a. JUDGE 19/5/92 I