igrazio messina another vs willo investment another 2000 tzca 24 7 june 2000

‘.i. IGilAfflO «iS3SINA^ .' 4 isFIJD£$ES. '2. NATIONAL bE[rPPIllG'/^CI3?.J., '•' AMD- I^VELLOV iKViSBSNT. } j . . / fepOHEEWBSr'' 2 . C.CSTA SHIHGANYA > | (Seferenco froa the^decision •of> .y:| ^single .-Judge" of Court, of; Appeal; of Tanzania at DarMs Salaam) :••• ? 'r CLupajqjigira?fJ«Aj ... - 'd a t e d the ' •- m O>.*■'* sv»« • f t i v i l ' jjr a X ic a tio iL K oi>8 4 'o f '1.998 -fO' K U-L I N Gb KISAHGAj J .&» • S is i s a " r e f e r e n c e from th e R u lin g o f a s i n g l e Judge o f t h i s C o u r t (L u g a k in g ira , J , A . ) d is m is s in g w it h corsts th e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r 5]tay o f e x e c u t io n p e n d in g a p p e a l t o th is C o u rt. The a p p l i c a t i o n « b d is m is s e d f o r n o t d i s c l o s i n g th e grou n d s on v h i c h t o e x e r c i s e th e C o u r t 's d i s c r e t i o n w h eth er o r n ot_ t o g r a n t a s t a y o f - e x e c u t i o n . K r . E alunga, l o a d e d a d v o c a te who a p p e a re d f o r th e a p p li c a n t i n t h i s r e f e r e n c e , had a l s o r e p r e s e n t e d th e a p p l i c a n t W o r e th e e in Bl e Jud^e, B e fo r e th e s i n g l e Judge th e le a r n e d c o u n s e l h a d su b m itte d t h a t : under rule 9 (2) <b) of the Court Ih£Las, - oiice notice of appeal has. baen lodged, the • Court'has noToption but to grant stay. .Ho . ^thor.requirement, ^ ^ , ... ... ...... *• •* • ■ * ■'-v ■\ i-H‘ '-: • s' '_ .- v -t-o the stand tee imd.-taken .*■: a lot At one moment he. seamed, to sticlt.to tne . V •; ••; /■• I.rV -: '-r ;''V ; • Withar he seemed t?.,.take tae exercise ui pwwu w-v •• . <"vV Y-**4 , rSfir'** - n+a-bBar at ' l & i & c * °i tte ^ ;' Su&mi5sx0ns:.the leai^odcounsel -was a- T/ ,"■ ' ,/. ’’ " -jSrtta&i itot .brOy serrjed to nail* our-.task..-j-r^', views he' was urging'.and, re©^t.t»pJJ, ^ .. . . ) - ' & : ? . ; ? % ■ ‘ 'more difficult. : g 7' " - .■*'■■:* T.nH -l_LiP ~ *.•••;. • to suspend any'sentence or"to sfey: execution, -.:,• but the .Court-may - _ • .(a) . (b) in any civil proceedings, where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Buie J76, order a stay of execution, on such terms - as the Court may think, just.-' . According to H r. K alm (p th is pioTO>ib» »«=* * sto y ° f cx“ u tls n **, - * * * *• d;btor’ “ d *■“ * - -• th e judgementd ^ t o r . bo,, m . d i t * . o f « j 5 - l =5- - * th e docro* * , q u estion « . Cottrt ^ * * > f * ‘ * ? “ T T -. - " " *• +vm Vane. In other words the only of-the-decree upon application -fQr~_._ ..~ ' • ' ~ - T' ‘ *. «/3 •• V itb the ^ ... ;&■•*■ ' ' 1 . ^ f " " •:^cbBq?letely n » : r- .; i : . i£wni>us judgement darters J' -■-'- " Vc. "' would enable unsoY^iflous DQOgf" ..._,- " undesirable ^ ^ notice of appeal - " to frustrate e«cution of decrees y s _ ^ ^ ; _ ;«-■ T 5 £ r £ i' •ts Thatwould amount. to_an abuse of courtpro .say, it lias no ments. l ^ woux _ . . _ — which ■■ • : Our ^ ^ % •. the institution "of”an not operate as a stay o _ . execution. 0 * ^ ^ ^ f. party sheulA-^_ ^ ^ t^d'imder't*ie- same rule >^ch gays- a n ..; ■■v•' •- - V - ' ^ :t^ ^ ’^ ; b ^ i o ^ o ^ i t h e Court *»£,■_*,;•:. - ^ .V i that i^cre notxce;_of anp^ " ^ ^ _ _ .. - - >• ^ '-••^•'5c '^ILri sta^ of Execution p e n d W the outcofie . (in .limited cixcupstances); stay « . . .. _ . -• •-••" ""- ^ : ^ou/^rLevh-the filing °f a notice.of appea^ - .- - ;*^*sr. ^ ‘ ^ 'Z f“ o t w °f “ “ * ° T “ pr« od» t * . - * « * - * - r * ” **” “ *OT11C* " ‘ ’ o f — < — - tities “ • c o w t to str ,• a of appeal has been filed; this gives the Court Once notico of app«-cxx •«“ „ the application for a stay, of execution. -It Jurisdiction to entertain the appia v v stressed^ ,* t « * doc not ^ - W > » , • ' ,Mrt^ — « * ^ - - — “ — ^ 16 ^ ” ’ 'v (2) the relevant part of *hich reads: ......••* the wording of sub-rote.(2) the r„ - -. - or-dex a stay of execution on such torn® .. •the Court nay _ ' ' ■ ' . A - vf exercisable^judiclally5-in-cxercibn_ng that power, the Court ’WiJJ. nqt-ftct.■--'r'-'-gz*. SiviV'.'-•’’ y-~ ""'V-v' 'v-"-V- '■’/. V,‘.';‘v^ ■f Hi - eiapriciously or according to.whimp but will be guided by" principles ... * ‘ -.y’j' .• »-,£■’'•*V’'; .* *t. •*’••-.••'ii-*' 'lV.‘'•*.- '"**/,t--. designed to. secure justice^and fairness to the parties, -.-• In yet another dimension Mr. Kalunga',contended that,, the Court .. <•/•':.£•. v '■ has so iar proceecea in a Haphazard maxmer in handling the. issus^of ?-. ... .1 ■.- *, ,> •,.vt -+i • r•’'•1#r — ■'''tvIt.r*r “ whether dr not to grant .a stay of execution* -.-He,,charged that.tha.Court . ^‘^-V .y.;, y.*j'YS^ ‘ ; .~'*v v'?**- '*' '* ' \. is confusedjin' .its application or interpretation of rule 9 .(2) “'(b) of the, Court Rules. In his. view the decisions of the Court, whether the full Court or single Judges J 'based on this provision do. not provide 'any., useful guidance; each gives-his/their owi\ interpretation not based on fany l^ovn^pr^Eipliis .^He^cited over'2Dr:c^es ’3ecided by. .thisCourt ".purporiiQ^-±iv31liistra.te' tne_poinx. ne was ma.Ki.ng> tie nave ax _ ■once-that Kri Kalunggt's dontention is a ca^leteTnisi^prescntation pf .wtat-'is-actuaEty oit the 'gre\aid. The true position is' that -ove.r tbe years- tiie' Court-has developed or adopted definite principles' whioh, in- the. present day, guide it when considering applications for stay orders. Thus, for instance, it is now settled that the Court will grant a stay of execution if the applicant can show that refusal to do so would cause J. substantial irreparable loss to him which cannot be atoned by an award of damages. It is equally settled that the Court will order a stay if _ refusal to do bo -would, in the event the intended appeal succeeds, render - — •* that success nugatory. Again the Court wili grant -a stay if, in its opinion, it.would-be on a balance of convenience to the parties to do_so. These-principles-ware reviewed and elaborated on at considerable length by this Court in.the two cases of Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board.v. CoRecot ; r.../5~ . -tMriearEed sliigle^udgo ''adduced. oFurgednto Justify invokinir or "the application offany *1 the laid down prjbac^ples, or to ^onstitute'a-iietfione,,for granting .a etay. ' Thus in paragraphs 1 - 8 of the said affidavit Mr, Kalunga alludes to .matters which have no relevance at all" to an application for a stay order. ; Rather, the paragraphs focus on.-various masters' which the learned counsel proposes to raisei in the intended appeal. 'The nearest Mr. EaZLunga could get was^in the last paragraph 9. of his affidavit which'says: :!9- Thai the7applicazits•„‘appeal stands^ a good chance of success. ^ If the‘execution 1 of; this!judgement ^is M^.st^edgpending-, _the' conclusion of this, syppeal,;. tiie- ^ applicants" stand tbTsnffer'^^eparab^r r. and' th^purpose_bf the .appeal will be - frustrated.",; That "the applicant’s’appeal stands- a good chance of succeeding ^as often been urged as a ground for granting a stay, but it has in modern tires been rejected by the Court. See, for example, the decision of this Court in Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board referred to above citing with approval the English case of Simonitej-v^ Shefield County Council - Time Law Reports 12 January 1993. We need say no more on "that as a-ground urged for granting stay in this case. K* T . Then Mr.’Kalunga jm the said paragraph 9 of his affidavit further _ alleges the ground of irreparable, loss. As stated before it as now a ' settled principle that the Court will granta'stay upon proof ^hat if Ytay is not granted the applicant will suffer sutotantikl. irreparable ^ossior damage: But there was nothing beyond W bare assertion by — /7 >f- these two 'cases'"4s aaong'the| long liot of oafl«a^cit«d'by Mr. Kalunga^ 3-^.i ft.:!:ffe'i'',; ,o demonstrate his^eontention that^ thc Court ic not guided /by any o^ttl^; •n f r . v w . •.' ^ ;• ~ principles’when considering whether“or not" to grant a stay order. r -T h e ^ ... .••• ."• - •V ; . - *•••;•' •••'"■ •;■>■ •""■ . xeaiiin^ ijf that case makes it plain that the Court was-refairing \p laid ■.. down principles and that all it was..doing was to determine wbeth«i- the facts end- circumstances of the particular ease before it easier within the ambit of any of thoae princi.p.1.63 so sis tw warrant granting a stay. But why Mr. KVHmg^ should cite the said ease as demonstrating how the C^urt was approaching haphazardly the issue of whether or not to grant a stay is far from clear. . More recently in i±e case ;of Tanzania Electric Supply Company Ltd. . and Two Others v. Independent Power. Tanzania Ltd. consolidated Civil Applications Nos.jy and ^7^ef^19S9 (IJnretiorted) t h ^ Court held_that it wouldr Kraut- a stay if--iir-ii;-demonstrated that the intended- appeal -has prima facie likelihood-of- success, -it appearing on the 'face”of it that the court handing dowiL the'decision"being appealed against lacked" jurisdiction to order the award." it did. . The thrust of-what we are ~ - saying is that there are settled principles, such as we have already referred to in this Ruling, which guide the Court in deciding whether or not to grant stay of execution. An applicant is required to satisfy the Court that the facts and circumstances of case bring that case within the ambit of one or more of those principles, and where he succeeds to do so this. Court will grant a stay. Ir/e need to add here “ -- V • V that the list of factors or circumstances which would warrant the grant of stay of execution is-not closed. It can be envisaged that with the passage of time the Court might develop new or additional" principles on which to act when considering whether or not to grant a- stay. That would be in line with-the accepted notion that the law is not static but growing or developing. further required' to.be. done. Tn these circumstances we- are satisfied, as indeed was the learned single Judge, that no grounds' were adduced bj or on behalf of the applicants on which the Court could exercises its discretion • under .rule 9 (2) Xh) of the Xburt'l^esT'' Acoordin^Ly the Reference 'is disnissed.vith costs. ' " v/ r SATED at B* j of ' June, .2000. JUSTICE TSP.APPEAL Hi ’Hi' KISAfcGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL