19990521 TZCA Dar es Salaam

utpzod jo pO.x JO t'cI UtTUOo 1 flJTTM q XM prrx; pr tt4 q- TA e pTjjLa olq w eqWfl * UO Tqd W a 'Xa ;o oT;OlIq ouln c~g T out x3T2j tc • PtTW ttTttI Jt 44 ST GOTT 4 Pt '96/L/OL UO aw P 9 o; PaTTdda GOU a tj PUe SSUTP G~O o a d J4 poox a4 a ldwoo aT44 JO UOs9Od ut 4e1c 4 OU O J a M ;t pu uaptzodo.x aqq, 4 96/L/oL S q 11 uo -c -;,T as se g l qua puod ga a aq4 UI puttuoo 9M pflt pU UUFOUO3 ptp 'DOAp' ;i pu aptxodx Rq GUOP pti qtt u xdux. .0 nprtx;ptn o'e; jo UUO3 TtJTT ppniotr '& TJIXOO z-;Tq4 4nc TJ pflOtS 4jrf4ib aq4 Xqm UOX ZA p;'i Ot[ tAptJJv e vXq 1I .t'1qT4 quxnr a uo ' duxco qtxeotcId Opzt 2UIU JO tAptJ; q p OCIdn 9M UOtOW jo ou 'tj *4,zr.Oo 9tt4 Jo LT4 Jo (L) cc inei rpun 'ca 'ca ueleTeg 40 I J 49T G 9114 R q PanssT 966k j a quiaoaCj 9t. PP uo14dwxa Jo ot;traq4 4 no a --3fTJ4s 0 4 4 .znoo $tT aorn o ;no • 9 PTi 4 tICtWO3 TqxN 'TJJV ' tT 'UOtOW JO 03.OU Ar DNInIfl[ c.. 66 J° 69 ' 0 N asvo tTAtD 966k. aq00 0;0 p qqLt pp • . (ZflTj) etttr ;o irtO . T.ttH aq4 S O Uottzep aTI4 wO.tJ Ta JO tJtXO XO UOtOtTdc1V) • JNcriOdJ ' . . 101 V~I0d00 Iffl?VS VIiVNVL1 • . b • aiiiwiti IVdW00 IVN MVOILffV • tddV P9Pt1 U JO UI 966L ff0 L9 0N N0ILV0IIddV nIIAI3ç ____ avcl YINVNV1 .ffO TdV. O flO0 ILL NI 4. - 2 - which he page 2 was in any event irrelevant, he asserted. In its counter affidavit opposing the application, the respondent company by its advocate Mr. Audax Kijana Kamea, denied the allegation of fraud and concealment and raised three issues in paragraph 3 of the affidavit about which he put the Court on notice that he would argue them as preliminary points at the hearing ,f. the application. These issues were as follows: 3. That the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavit are incurably defective and bad in law or otherwise incompetent on the grounds. that:'. That the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavit were drawn and filed by an advocate who at the material time did not have the right to practice law before this Court as per the Chie±' Justice's Circular dated 30th November 1998, a copy whereof is exhibited hereto marked Exhibit A-KI. The Notice of Motion does not comply with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules. (C) The Notice of Motion is not an application for review of this Court's decision dated 18th August 1998 upholding the validity of the Registrar's certificate, a copy whereof is exhibited hereto and marked Exhibit A-K2. And that matters set out in 3 (a), (b) and (c) above will be raised by way of preliminary objection at the hearing of the application. In his reply to the counter affidavit, the applicant's Managing Director, Mumba Mabu replied paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit as foll.ws: . 9 -3- 3. That the contents of paragraph 3 of Mr. Audax Kijana Kaneja's (hereinafter referred to as AKK1t) counter affidavit are denied and in answer thereto I contend assertively as follows: 3.1 As regards the contents of paragraph 3 (a) of the Counter affidavit of A-KK, it is, true that the Notice of Mntion and the supporting affidavit were ärawn and filed, by the Hon. Mabere Nyaucho 1arando J41 for the applicant. But the applicant contends that even if there was any irregularities about our havocate's practising certificate • which fact at the material time was not known to the applicant, or to the Chief Justice of Tanzania, the well known principle of law namely the indoor management ruled protects the applicant who dealt with the advocate. Further, in any case, irregularity of the practising certificate of our advocate, if any, does not make the application of IVO the applicant which is ì'operly before the 1 Court, to abate. The advocate is only an agent who can be hired and be fired at any time at the instance of the applicant. Moreover, lion. Mabere Nyaucho Marando, M.P. did not sign any documents concerning this application. They were signed by the Managing Director of the applicant on behalf rfthe applicant. e GOWC 3'FTT .'xo;xatri 966L X3O Jo; 9tJIJoo utsrt;ox tuo oq. p8tx iO pairo; pj 0t[M 30Ap 304t1 S'e3tflf ;€nj sL14 uo 9T atj oorrooq ooto'e.x Oq. peTt1'2flbtIfl 16/0k/6 '3t 'Gwt. ope LTq l,'e M OTPI T1flO3 poUXOe opui 'JTd' q POTTJ P LIe UMJP 1OM TAEPT uodcIns pu uo -rqow ;o ezrt;ou tfl 'popp 'nq 'tioiow jo icq @q Ett°q anoo srctI4 oq 9u0T'e3TIctL> soJTp tJflO3 =44 So 9fl jo (L) 4- 9T pqtwqno uz)I 41(e) tqp uor;otzu0o • u ' ( o ) P° (q) () ç puiou r—qn orqq e -e tj 4TA e PTj.J L, • JeqttflO3 aTjq 30 ç UtOcI rUtWITOJcI --e 4TA3pI;J Jatrno3 TL[ • ;-ç cr2JJCI U0 OW soopp 04 paNsne 'UotJ0CIJ03 4 uepuodsaa OL4 J0 ttIflO3 POU.xT 'TI341 'uOtODt[ctcft gTL 1 4 30 ULrOOq aq4 4 V o'qxoct awes OL[; txooMoq 666L 30 +1 • °I ItATO Ut B# T ta aT44 3' P UOT43DaIP TeToade 9t4tXtMQtTOj XUO3 aqq. OJO;Oq 0I gt uoTotTcIc ta uoveocIcIct tt o. cke .otx op .x oi p nC2,aj ;o s'oitowtxct T Pt ;uoptxOdoJ Ot4 30 41 • n- R q a ,[qTsevd apLew 'OOuO;9Tw tt[ icq p9U0tSO00 4.Tnoo t1.H O14 JO ,JI20J .ot.xta • otjq iZq ponst fZop g o IJtJGO ST4 JO P940aaTp UOtOTTcM. i; St 4anoo a-qq OJOJGq uoT q eoTTdde Ott4 qeq4 • optxeUO0 - cIds otp pGTUOp axe 4T AV pTj j~e Jounoo 9t4 jo (o) ç tx2cI 30 StXOUO3 Ot1 çç • •peqtxosod sst NO T aqq ttotw ptn iuo; uç sç tz0tWotTdc8 Gql 'OtUp St A?ptJ JGtIfl0 9D{V JO '(q) ç ;o suotxoo oti, E' • 9!?M ;uoptxodso OJOt(M uot;onb oq; o; aamstre oq; uO popuoctop rt; o90 t;oq UI '() 9 ia .xopwt q Ofl99T °tt; 50 O ;ooqns' OW$ Ot .U0.pttO GOq.Jd aveq ott; UOOM;Oq L6/+t- 6 OLT oouo.xe;o- TTAT3 JO tt010tTdflp S $t ;t MOtZ 4OU 91 • uororicIcI ;uo$ojct ott; pwqr '(0) c 110 T'I 'no ;T GNT J 4G o; qanoo wttI; p01A111 pue ptAtx1 9C q.t 'uostoci ;uo;oJuxoo e .cq p9U19 40u GM uot;ow ;o oot;ou ott; 'U0199ttUqfl9 $iiE2)JW Ut o.x0JO.xott;o0ut e$ol800Ap9 .rtoq. ;. ;ooq uO 94UournoQp u.ts 0; 84t1ot0 .XOModWO 4ou coop oTflJ ott; 'oeo ott; jo ;onpuoo pq ;i ;t 118c1:woo SJ4 r9DtIctcto ott; jo ;IqOq tbO P .Gtl2 _F6- odo.xct OAtt PT 0 nq CtUflJ oit 'o9n900q ç+ einer S () 0nr—qn popuoj;o 'po;;s otut3 opur8j e80Op J. fl9tjoq 120 iCuedmoo ;uo1TdU oti; ;o .xo;ooJTa U8119 ott; q potItG 98M ; -t ';t u -cg ;ou ptp OLTM opuo.z o;90oAp q POTTS p ue 12MJ £8M 9 tTth ott; cq pot; uo -t;ow jo oot;ou ott; t8$ Ot{ 'JOAOMOH -G 0,_e3OAPP eTIT .10 4tmoiTdd7e ott; iq pauBig oq T I L~ q s ;T tt; pü8 V cu.xo ut STTVT4tM j eqn9 oq o; uoT 4 roTjdde ott; 9OJinbO.1 OTUJ (?) onj Jo 9uot9tAoJd ott; 9UOJJO ;t $t ;tt; 'q.00(I2o.1 ott;o ouog ut PTTAUT ST awLas vq4 &;ç JO;q TPrEA 9 T uot;ow ;o oot;ou ott; ;tj; 9ptxT; ;mOo oq; 8utwn ;t; poD4twqn9 iufj (q) ç tio fl0 )flI.$ oq KT3vTp a 000v P1fl0t19 ptre ;Jno $Ttfl. OJOJOq J&c1OJct 4011 ST tI0OW 1 0 OOTOtt 4U99OJc3 Ot tpOpnou00 G90t1 $WttO.ItO °tt; U • Jr(O3 Rtre Ut OtXX8tI lIMO q Ttj UT JO uojocI Jot;o XU8 JO OU19tI Otfl. Ut BuT p a o 0oad JOtO JO 4Tne 'uot;o fue puo;op .20 120 i.XX80 1 O0UOWWO) O. JO 9900 OJCI JOtt.Q .20 9UOWUJfl9 1cix'a ;no • 93j8q O. O0OAp 'qOnS JO O4e00Ap 118 98 B U Z4 0V tUOaj pO4qOJCI9M ot oou8utpJO ott; ;o uo -r;oo optxn pu8 M1 oot;od o; 1109J0d pot;tnbun 119 OOIX8tXTp.XQ 990OApV Ot 50 6 ; ucT oag JOtIfl S'8M Ot 1 ; 0 TJT;.1o 0 JO uOT9Sa99od UT .2011 SGZ'e O OAPV Jo 49 -q etij 110 JOtttOU 9M ai 94tA8ptJJ8 V U14aOddn .S ott; p118 UQt;ow ;o o5t4ou ott; poit; opu8.x - - -6- supplied with a complete record of proceedings by the registrar for the purpose of preparing the appeal. In that reference, the. Co1irt made a specific finding that the registrar had not supplied a complete record and upheld the validity of the certificate. In the circunistances, Mr. Kam e ja submitted, he did not see how a single judge can overturn the decision of the full Court. He therefore suggested that the only course àpen to the applicant was to apply to the Court to review its decision, and that therefore this application should be dismissed with costs. In reply Mr. Marando dealt with grounds 3 (a) (b) and (c) in turn, With regard to (a) he conceded that at the time the notice of motion was drawn and filed, he was not in possession of a practising certificate, but he denied drawing and filing the notice of motion because he was quite clear in his mind that he could not practice law without a certificate. He added that during the material period, he was in Dodoma so he could not have drawn and filed the notice of motion, this he said, is supported by the fact that he did not sign it. On 3 (b), Mr. Marando submitted that both the notice of motion and the affidavit appear to have beensigned on his behalf, but he said that this could not render these documents incompetent. WDP Lastly on 3 (c) he said that this application was a completely new application unrelated to Ci.ril Reference No. 1 1+197 and that therefore it is a valid independant application. • We shall deal with each sub-paragraph of paragraph 3 in turn. The guide posts in relation to 3 (a) are Sections 39 (1) and 1+1 (1) of the dvocates' Ordinance. These sections provide as follows: S.39 - ( i) Subject to the provisions if Section 3 and as hereinafter provided, no person shall be qualified to act as an advocate unless his name is on the poll and he has in force a .. '/7 T2TFf,ZopuUs ofl xaqN *UOH vq POTTS PLM UUt JM Ap;;U Tpi T6th o T -t 'IV .JO 4:rivept3J xuno jo () ç qdJ.rr 30 UuoUO3 Olq4 Sptp3qT SV qou l- 4TAePTSJt xoqmo3 Gq4 SO t{JUXd oq. ATdx trç T U •Ap -t;J' Jtrn0o 0 4 KTdaj Utt trç 4u9TTO LiMO giq kq qULM joTpPa4upo !i EIU JT44 ill )OM gJaA axe Gotup '-Tll 3iUTT44I - PTT-eA aq PIOOM uoiqou ;o oçou UTU UuooCqo 'po -o uotow jo ootou 97q4 aTTJ pue !J PPUT 3T -Th- T 3 Tt{dUI tnb ppp poptr 'p3TJt1nbua SM ii srem ot uotow jo ot;ou OL • - pi; pu LtML-.Xp @Arlq i4 ptU ail LM sT ';G'Wq IOU pfl0 • opui q ppotxo Pcc cr omeT ao -clo"ejd oq uoxod pttnbun uU t() 6C ttOts 30 swaa4 iii txOt;tut;p Jq rLTfl sram 9M UOtOUi jO a0TIOU aT44 a mil i)U 3tjtJO jo uood ut 40d optxzu tj ' -twp wo up _tUtiPtrtI3 JO [tAID JO 99nlaD Auu ut ooAp Jo 'UOtorptJnC TvtrpTao .xC • tAtO SO 4.TILOO 1U12 Ut allfeU LiMO ttt Ut JO uomxI JOtQ Atm jo uru Otfl. Ut 2uTpqq3Oxd JLfl.O JO 4Tnq 'txOtoU tru pTI9JOp 10 UG •A.xxo ouawwoo JO 'oo.icI to uuoiwuns Cuo qno ans tonU JO '9JOqtfl9 JO; UO JO A9j-eoOAPV Ue SU 4ov TVTqs UoGJd pot;tnbuh ON uOcOaS pU - UoJd pacSr ,[*qnbLm, j u poJJ3J 4xed sTqq ut .t pi -t;inb ou • • _Ou sT oxim uoJd piIU Tj.J3O - -8- I therefore do not see how Mr. Marando can deny from the Bat' this assertion. The defence that the rotice of motion and the fEid-ldt - were y,M- -- - rrInl1v - ained by Mr. Marando abut on his behalf cannot cure the irregularity, in fact in my view, it compounds the irregular natarc- of the notice of motion and it supporting affidavit. The position then is that Mr. Marando as an unqualified person at the time, acted as an advocate by taking out the notice of motion and instituting proceedings in the name of his clients, African Marble Company Limited. This action clearly contravened Section 39 (1) of the Advocates Ordinance. The proceedings which he started in contravention of the law cannot be valid in this Court. Hence this Court was not competently and validly moved in this matter. Accordingly I uphold the objection in paragraph 3 (a). With regard to paragraph 3 (b), Mr. Mumba Mabu clearly had no authority to sign for the applicant's advocate. MrKane contention that the notice of notion must be signed by the applicant or his advocate. is correct. Mr. Mumba Mabu as Managing Director of the applicant company could quite properly have signed for the company, but he could not sign the documents drawn and filed by the applicant's advocates. The notice of motion and its supporting affidavits were thus not validly signed. However, I think that if the notice of motion had been properly before this Court, I could probably have considered allowing the applicant to regulax'ise the signatures on the noticeand the affidavit and refrained from invalidating it on this ground. Lastly on 3 (c), I are satisfied after going through-thip record that the present application is not different from the questiondealt with by the Court in Civil Reference No. 1+ of 1997, namely, the validity of the Registrars exemption certificate. The only difference is that in the present application a different reasoi is given for impugning K -9- the certificate, namely, fraud and concealment on the part of the respondent and its advocates Accepting the Registrar's certificate as valid, the Court stated We have given the earnest consideration to Mr. Marando's arguments and in the end we are satisfied, for the reasons we have erideavourod to give, that Capt. Kameja is right in contending that there is no basis for Yaulting the learned single judge's decision. Accepting the Registrar's cerjbificate, as we do, we hold that the record of the case was ready for collection when it (the record) was complete, that is on the date Capt. Kameja was informed by the registry that the documents his firm had asked for were ready for collection. In our opinion, therefore, there was no basis, as the learned single judge held, for striking out the notice of appeal. If after the Court had handed down the above ruling, the applicants had come upon new material indicating fraud and concealment on the part of the respondent and its advocate, the proper thing to do was for the applicants to file an application to the Court to review its ruling in the light of the new matter which was not biown to them both at the time of hearing the application before the single judge and before the Court during reference. As it is, a single judge o this Court cannot overturn the decision of the Court however meritorious the application before him. For these reasons I uphold Mr. Kameja's submission in support of para-aph 3 (c). Accordingly this notice of motion is incompetent and I strike it out with costs. .. .1w - 'lt 0 ~' IV - 10 - DELIVERED at DAR ES SALkAM this 21st day of May, 1999. L.M.MFALILk I certify that this is a true copy of the ,riginal. ( 1 JG1 11vJARIJA ) DEPUTY_REGISTRAR