20010405 TZCA Dar es Salaam

00 0fl.X M 'JoAorkOq 40UM c661- 30 9+ oom tddv TTAID epiA JMOD et 0; pidde Lt 'AOT TnT/ 6I- jo 2ç °N TeeddV ITATO ;.11103 14STH 9' L] ;°i eq ur 'e.xeqM 4anoo qI}-J eq; o; POT-eaddp ;uoqdd oqj 0pu - 9 6 9,uapuodsaj euj oq.ui dax; J0 aql pone iZTTnjegaoons ;uepuode eq;'t. ;° 6 OJ eSD UATD 4anO D 40TJ49T(I oJeqwo -r) u pe;; ije.iq eq w uode sçq; o; e$TJ SuTAT SO ptznooq eT4 ' ;iApT;; fl wojj -qu-eolTddv oqq. cq UaOms 4tAPTJ OT44 ST uot;eoilclde eq; jo ;.xoddns tx u01$Toep eWI. Ut .4et.xc1od pue k4TIpsaT l s2au400jjO3 eq; o; qu JTe;c x;$;e jo 9eGod.md .xo; (r.'opuei) '66t- 'qnnV qQL pe;ep uOT$tOep etj4 o; uprçeed 966!, ;o 9C 0 oi ieedd hAlO Ut JflOO qIH eq; ;0 p.xOoe.x eq; euurexe pue .10; TIeo o; 4.1r103 eq; SUTAOW Gi 'pgSPDpI4 urtSGe) '4u 0 TTdde eqq. 'uot;ow ;o eoi;ou JZg °uotstnai .xoj uot4eOt[dde we si StqJ leulOD Hl O DNIfl UT 696L &qgnny '4401- po;ep (TrOPU) so isa ;e ettrezuej, J0 ;Jno TH Otfl. JO ;uew -pnr aqq U1OJJ UOTSTAad .I0j tIOt.G0lIddV) 10aNOdSEa ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fl\{flXflH .A'rIIh GMV JINVOIIddY VOSVDVW lHissni NIL Teeddy POPUOWI tie jo aoqq -el,,l aq; u 9661- ao 9+7 0N NOIlVOItddV hAlO :yJOO) TFTITS I HYG WV VINVZNVJ do IVddV dO WefflOD SHI NI t Ca' -.2- out on 7,8.1995, on the ground that copy of the extracted decree was not attached. Still determined, he filed a fresh notice of appeal on 17.+.1997. For some reasons, Mr. Chamriho, learned counsel who was then handling the case on behalf of the applicant could not take essential steps to institute the appeal within the prescribed time, the notice of appeal was again struck out on 2.12.1997. The applicant has come to the Court by way of revision. Before us in this application, both the applicant and the respondent were unrepresented. The applicants main complaint was that the Court should revise the decision of the High Court because he was denied justice. In its decision on appeal, he said the High Court did not take into consideration the evidence favou'able to him. Explaining why he did not appeal against the decision complained against, he said he could not appeal due to the negligence of the advocate who was then conducting his case. According to him and as indicated in the affidavit, on account of the advovates failure to institute the appeal within the time prescribed., the notice of appeal was struck out twice. The respondent's short reply in opposing the application was that this is not an appropriate case for revision. He said negligence, if any, should he dealt with differently, it is not a ground for the Court's exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. We think the only main issue falling for consideration is whether counsel's negligence or inaction is one of the circumstances in which the court can invoke its revisional jurisdiction. We agree with the respondent that this is not an appropriate case in which the Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction. The principles underlying the Court's exercise of its revisional jurisdiction are "/3 rk - 3 - now settled. The Couxt restated these principles in the cases of Moses Mwakibete v. The Edit or.L Uhuru and two others ,19957 TLR 134 , Transport Equipment Id. v. D.P. Valambhia p9957 TLP 161, Hal lais 9977 TLR 269 and AttorneGeneralv. Maalini Kadau and 16 Others 599w TLP 69. From these cases, the following principles aiiiong others were underscored: Except under exceptional circumstances, a party to proceedings in the High Court cannot invoke the revisional jurisdic' tion of the Court as an alternative to the appe ilate jurisdiction of the C urt A party to proceedings in the High Court may invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Court in matters which are not appealable with or without leave (emphasis supplied) In our view, the circumstances of this case do not fall within the anfoit of these principles. As already observed, the applicant desperately maintains that it was through no fault of his that he did not appeal against the High Court (Kyando, J.) decision, it was the fault of the advocate. We accept that that may well be so but unfortunately counsel's negligence or inaction is no ground for the Court's exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. As the decision of the High Court of 10.8.1989 was appealable, the applicant cannot therefore come to the Court by way of revision as an alternative to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. It is common knowledge that the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 as amended by Act No. 17 of 1993, was not meant to be invoked in circumstances such as this. . For the foregoing reasons 9 we are satisfied that there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed with costs9 DATE at DAR ES SALAAM this 5th day of April, 2001. R. H. KLSANGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. Z. LTJ&WA JUSTICE OF APPEAL KOSOKOLUGAKINGIPA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. (AOG/MiRIJA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR