nalogwa zakaria vs wandoa msunza 1996 tzca 21 24 may 1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM ( CO r a m t HAKAME. J . A . . MNZAVAS. J . A . , And LUBUVA, J . A . > C IV I L APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 19 9 5 BETWEEN NALOGWA ZAKARIA..................................................... APPLICANT AND WANDOA MSUNZA........................... ..........................RESPONDENT ( A p p l i c a t i o n f o r an o r d e r t h a t t h e o r d e r o f t h e H ig h C o u r t j u d g e b e s e t aside o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e J u d g e e r r e d i n h i s d e c i s i o n o f t h e H ig h C o u r t o f T a n z a n ia a t D ar e s S a la a m ) ( M a in a t J . ) d a ted th e 3 0 th d a y o f M ay, 1995 in (P C ) C W -n Anno a l UO, 161 r f 199? R U L I N G LUBUVA. J . A . : B e fo r e t h e P r im a r y C o u r t a t M a h z e se i n D ar e s S a la a m * t h « r e s p o n d e n t had su ed th e a p p lic a n t , h e r h u sban d i n C i v i l C a se N o, B5 o f 1991 in w h ic h t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r w as a h o u s e , a lle g e d ly a m a tr im o n ia l p r o p e r t y . T hough th e p r im a r y c o u r t had d e c id e d t h a t th e h o u s e w as a m a t r im o n ia l h o u s e , th e a p p lic a n t and t h e r e s p o n d e n t w ere ord ered to pay a c o m p e n s a tio n o f Shs. 7 ,l8 9 ,0 0 « /= to e n e F a n u e l N a s h o k ig w a b e f o r e th ey c o u ld ta k e p o s s e s s io n of * - th e h o u se . T he r e s p o n d e n t a p p e a l e d to th e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w h ere th e a p p ea l w as d is m is s e d . On a s e c o n d appeal to th e H ig h C o u r t , th e a p p e a l w as a llo w e d w h e r e in i t w as h e ld t h a t th e resp on den t had a r i g h t to her sh are in th e h ou se, it b e in g a m a tr im o n ia l h ou se and t h a t it w as w ron g t o a w a rd c o m p e n s a t i o n t o DW.2 w ho w as n o t a p a rty to th e s u it. The d e c i s i o n of th e H ig h C o u r t w a s ___ n 2 d e liv e r e d on 3 0 .6 .1 9 9 4 and th e n o tic e of a p p e a l w as f i l e # ©l» 2 0 .6 .1 9 9 4 . T he a p p l i c a n t , th e hu sban d o f th e r e s p o n d e n t unhappy w ith th a t d e c is io n . He f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n s e e k in g le a v e of th e H ig h C o u r t t o appeal to t h i s C o u r t ©n 2 9 . 7 . 1 9 9 4 * D is m is s in g th e a p p lic a tio n fo r le a v e , t h e H ig h C o u r t (M a in a , J . ) h e ld th a t th e a p p lic a t io n w h ic h i n te rm s o f r u le 4 3 (a ) o f th e C o u r t '# R u le s , 1979, s h o u ld H ave b a o n f i l e d w ith in 14 d a y s * f t h e d a t e o f t h e d e c is io n w as t i m e - b a r r e d . F rom t h a t d e c i s i o n fcha a p p l i c a n t h a s com e t o th is C ou rt. In w h at a p p e a rs t o u s a r a t h e r n o v e l s t y le * th i® was f i l e d l>y O r . S a f a r i , 1 A s sh ow n i n th e n o t i c e of m o tio n , th e a p p lic a tio n w a s p u r p o r t e d l y made u n d e r r u l e s 4 5 and 75. In t h a t m o tio n , a Judge o f th is C o u r t w as t o be m ov ed f o f c an order s e ttin g a s id e "th e order o f t h e H ig h C o u r t r e f u s i n g l e a v e to appeal th<» ■9 *OUnd t h a t e h « i n h i s .d e c is io n * * The a p p l i c a t i o n w as s u p p o r te d b y th e a ffid a v it o f th e a p p lic a n t, N a lo g w a Z a k a r i a . In th e a f f i d a v i t i t is sta ted ! 1. That I w as n o t r e p r e s e n t e d in th e H ig h C 9 u r t and w a s i g n o r a n t o f th e t im e fix e d b y la w to f i l e p e titio n of appeal to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l. 2. That I b e lie v e th a t th e c a s e r a is e s a fu n d a m e n ta l is s u e of la w fo r d e c is io n of th e C c e u r t. We w o u ld f i r o t d e a l w ith th e m a n n er i n w h i c h t h is a p p lic a tio n has been p ro o e sse c?. As a lr e a d y p o i n t e d ou t* in th e n o tic e o f m o ti«m , it is clearly i n d i c a t e d th a t th e order s o u g h t w as s e e k in g to »® t a s id e th e H ig h C caurt o r d e r r e fu s in g t© g r a n t le a v e to a p p e a l. e . • ./3 3 T h is seem s t o us ra th e r n o v e l becau se w hat th e a p p lic a tio n in te n d e d to a c h ie v e w as t o o b ta in fro m t h is C ou rt le a v e to appeal g a in s t th e H ig h C o u r t d e c i s i o n or to have an e x t e n s i o n of tim e i n w h ic h to file an a p p l i c a t i o n fo r le a v e to a p p e a l. T h i s w o u ld b e in accord an ce w ith th e p r o v i s i o n s of S e c tio n 5 (l)(c ) of th e A p p e lla te J u r is d ic tio n A ct, 1979 a s th e m a tt e r o r i g i n a t e s fr o m th e p r im a r y c o u r t . It is fo r th a t rea son th a t i t app ears to us t h a t th e r e lie f s o u g h t w as c o u c h e d in su ch a m a n n er t h a t it does n o t in d ic a te c le a r ly w hat i t seeks to a c h ie v e * T he n e x t i s s u e is w h e th e r th e a p p lic a tio n is p r o p e r ly b e fo r e ub. A lth o u g h in th e n o tic e o f m o tio n i t is in d ic a te d th a t th e a p p lic a tio n w a s m ade u n d e r r u l e s 45 and 75 of th e C o u r t 's r u le s * l£ 7 9 > it is o u r u n d e r s ta n d in g th a t th e a p p lic a t io n w as b a s e d on th e p r o v is io n s of r u le 4 3 (b ) of th e C o u r t 's r u le s . The r e a s o n Is th a t th is m a tter a r is e s fro m th e d e c is io n of t h e H ig h C o u r t i n w h ic h th e a p p lic a tio n fo r le a v e to appeal to t h i s C o u r t w as d is m is s e d . W it h th e d is m is s a l o f th a t a p p lic a tio n , th e a p p lic a n t h a s com e t o u s in term s o f r u le 4 3 (b ) w h ic h a l l o w s a p a r t y w h ose a p p lic a tio n fo r le a v e to appeal has been r e fu s e d b y th e H ig h C o u r t t& seek le a v e fro m th e C o u r t. T h is i s w hat th e a p p lic a n t h as d^he. In th a t c a s e , it b e in g an a p p l i c a t i o n of t h is n a tu re, it is our s e ttle d v ie w th a t as i t is th e ca se w ith su ch c i v i l a p p lic a t io n s s e e k in g f o r le a v e of th e C o u rt a f t e r r e f u s a l by th e H ig h C $ u r t , th e m a tte r s h o u ld h a v e com e to a s in g le ju d g e of t h e C o u r t an d n o t b e f o r e a ben ch of th re e ju d g e s o f th is C o u rt. That n o t w i r > g . w o u ld carry th e m a tt e r f u r t h e r on its m e r it® . D is m is s in g th e a p p lic a t io n vor le a v e to a p p e a l, i th e le a r n e d ju d g e h e ld th a t th e a p p lic a tio n h a v in g been f i l e d «». * «/4 4 a fte r th e e x p ir y of th e p r e s c r ib e d p e r io d and a s t h e r e w a s nO a p p lic a tio n fo r th e e x te n s io n of t im e file d , th e a p p lic a tio n ' f. was time-barred. At the hearing of this application Hr* Hwaka]iftf%» learned Counsel for the respowleat vho hM also represented the £e#!Mandep,t before the High Qourt submitted that the applies tie* Ve» devoid of any merit. He stated that the application was file d of time and that the appellant did not follow the advice «# Whe Chid# Justice to^apply fojr an extension of time in which te f i l e the application for leave to appeal. As far the applicant*a claim that he did not ktiow the time fixed by the rules £©*“ •? - ' a p p ly in g fo r le a v e to a r p p e a l, Mr* W t f s k a ji p g s c h a r g e d t b « t of th e la w is no d e fe n c e . pressed f o r ; th e d is m is s a l © f th e •*/ 0 -*' application.1 j. As a lr e a d y in cficrete-cJT t h e a p p l ic a n t ’ s grou n d fo r th e - - a p o l i c a t l o o *»a© t h a t he w a n t e d th e appeal to be h ea rd 40 t h a t ju s tic e c o u ld be done in th e c a s e a s he w as n o t r e p r e s e n te d b e fo r e th e H ig h C f w jf t . ,He s t r o n g l y u r g e d th a t th e le a r n e d J u d g e h a d e jr r e d in d i s m i s s i n g ,.£he a p p l i c a t i o n . A p p e a r in g i n person b e fo r e us at th e h e a r in g o f th is a p p lic a tio n , th e a p p lic a n t r e p e a te d w hat he had sta ted in th e a ffid a v it, th a t he d id n o t know t h e tim e f i x e d by tine r u l e s f o r filin g a p p lic a t io n s and a p p e a ls to t h e C fc u r t , As seen fro m th e r u lin g of th e H ig h C o u r t , it is common grou nd th a t th e ju d g m e n t o f th e H ig h C © u r t w a s d e l i v e r e d on 1 7 .6 .1 9 9 4 . The a p p l i c a t i o n fo r le a v e to a p p e a l w as lo d g e d b e fo r e th e H ig h C o u r t On 2 9 . 7 . 1 9 9 4 . In term s o f r u le 4 3 (a ) of t h e '1 C ou rt* s r u l e s th e. a p p lic a t io n fo r le a v e to appeal is to be f ile & ’ w ith in f o u r t e e n ;d ? y s fr o m th e d a te of th e d e c is io n . T he a p p l i c a t i o n '** fo r le a v e w as t h e r e f o r e , as c o r r e c tly h e ld by th e le a r n e d ju d g e t • • e •/ 5 ti « * » - F u r t h e r m o r e , w ith th e p r e s c r i b e d tim e fo r 8 p j4 y iM Q fo r le a v e h a v in g e x p ir e d and t h e r e w a s n o a p p l i c a t i o n file d fo r e x te n s io n of tim e in w h ic h t o f i l e th e a p p lic a tio n fo r le a v e to a p p e a l , we c a n s e e n o g r o u n d f o r £ a n l t i i» g r t h e le a £ T » tf }u * § e ip J4is d e c i s i o n t o d is m is s th e a p p lic a t io n * I t w as h o p e l e s s ly ftttfc. of t i m e and th e r e w as n o th in g t h a t th e le a r n e d ju d g e c o u ld d o in ord er to s a lv a g e th e s itu a tio n * We a r e a ls o s a tis fie d th a t no p o in t o f la w w a s i n v o l v e d in t h i s m a tte r w orth th e c o n s id e r a t io n of t h is C ou rt* The a p p l i c a n t ’ s c l a im t h a t he w as ig n o r a n t o f th e tim e f i x e d by th e r u le s fo r th e p r o c e s s in g of p e titio n s an # a p p e a l s t o th e C o u r t 1st o f n o a v a il as- i t is com m on k n o w le d g e th a t ig n o r a n c e o f t h e la w is no d e fe n c e at a ll in la w . R u le s o f th e C o u r t e r e th ere t® r e g u l a t e th e p r o c e s s in g of a p p e a ls e t c , th ey , s h o u ld be fo llo w e d v ig o r o u s ly * O th e r w is e , n o n -c o m p lia n ce w ith th e se r u le s on g rou n d s of ig n o r a n c e of th e r u l e s w o u ld im p e d e th e s p e e d y and s m o o th r u n n in g o f t h e C ou rt* s b u s i n e s s . T h e r e w o u ld b e end t o litig a tio n . In th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s of th is c a s e , we a r e s a tis fie d th a t th e re are no grou n d s f o r th e a p p l i c a n t 's c o m p la in t t h a t J u s t i c e w as n o t d on e in th e c a s e . It is to be o b se rv e d th a t th e a p p lic a n t and th e respon den t are s till husban d and w i f e . The d e e M l o n b y t h e H ig h C o u r t w h ic h is c o m p la in e d of d id n o t d e p r iv e th e a p p lic a n t o f a sh are in th e h ou se. R a th e r, it w as d e c id e d t h a t th e h ou se was a m a tr im o n ia l h o u se .in w h i c h b o t h th e a p p l i c a n t an d t h e resp on d en t had a s h a r e . As none o f th em w a s d e p r i v e d o f a S h are i n th e h ou se, a fa ir b a la n c e of ju s t ic e , w as, in th e c ir c u m s t a n c e s ,-m a in t a in e d . C o n s e q u e n t ! '', we a r e s a tis fie d t h a i: t h i s a p p lic a tio n h a s no m e r it a t a ll. It i r d is m is s e d w ith co sts. DATED AT DAR ES SALAriM THIS 24th DAY OF M a y, 199* L » M. MAKAME JUSTICE OF APPEAL N.So MNZAVAS J USTICE OF APPEAL D .Z . LUBUVA TUSTICE OF APPEAL I c e r tify J t 1® e t r u ° c o p y o f th e o r i g i n a l *