20020624 TZCA Mwanza

fit 0 .•. :... .uctcIrh? W1. O tflp.IJtI2 17 cm apn a-[,VtqG oqq. e.xo;q:.; O13 OS tc jo a.xo;q odth 'St esp 'z exo ezoq poc aq 9tj.xou 4 •,cI optC u-c9 aq' o.Io;oq zoIct II ou ptp ; ,0 EJuxp1 .mot -tcII ot 1 • y.. V ZflOO flflJ Otj • O OOUOXJ 0.1 GPU1 oq ptm P0T 0• -tdth o.x.xiq-ourq 2u -rq .zo tzo oqIcti oq4 000 t;pt •. 4no . Xbn4j.s pue wtt poqcfr opnC eTiuto eTq,Ti 'tzotooCqo £ratwt,&zct, I v. Btt 'opnC o- irc ot e.1o;oq o -i pu 'rn o.tooq eq; .10; p zectck 0t1b 9 O04U)2 .PU.19t 'otr . 2W orao ;.1noj) tl2ig 0t jo 2tr - rt. u, cLn.reja tct oo 40;; ° Tv a. dcTV oq. OAVOT ..to; U0 ttcIdtI e; o; Oarq ;o 0 t9 2fl00 Stt:. ;o e3pnC et2 trcs v r4oaj ;qnos 1ti am 666L. &.zeqw9Ao jo• cp q; atIl p42p ..... • ••••••••••••••• :. • •••••••••••••.... '•I .... 0 • (txTtj •GTu 9.'zU ;o ioddy 0 1-moo otfl. o epn o2wt9 •I 13 TO Sixtn )tfl. W0.1; DN'u) • 0• , 9., 0 0 -TwatiNodsmi flffV}IOVW 1t J}LLINr (TNV Ifaroiri ciciv T'ccv pOpUE41I ury .3:0 ::w U] OOO iO L • or rIA]:o • 0• •• .0•. iQrill jrd1f - EO ainoo ghwl 'a 0 • O• ci •, 00 (J 0 • • 0 o 0.x - ___ . -• .• . r - L i __C 'k-Y Wl • r 16, •• j •' , • .e. Mr. Ndayanse made his application to the zingie judge he had app1id in the Righ Court for loave to appeal t a uling of that court in Mi.cellanoous tivi1 Application N2of1998. The High Court gave its ruling in his absenco on ti i9tc3bruaXY, 1999 ond ho only caxiio to Iaow of it on 17thJiaroh, 1999. The ruling was not in has favour and he wanted to make the seine L'pplication in the Court of ippeal. 11owvcr, because of some '•- mstthc1iflC bLtwoen him and the judLe of the High Court who 4 'refused hm leavo to cppeai to this Court 1 ho sought advise from. Jdaciary Headquarters. lie obtained the advice by 218t May, I I By then the time to apply for icave n this Court had ran I I 4 otnd on 17th June, 1999 he filed in tbie Court his applicat iofl 'for otension of time to apply for loao to appeal. The sing)e judg I N. • ) I '- ••v, i 4 ç 9ds that the application for extension of time was itself time is of the single judge whch the applicant is that rulg ts,to challenge before the fufl. Court in this reference. !s pointed out by the single judge 1 by the time the applicant t b'otgbthis application to this Court it was cxLctly three months after be learned of the High Court ruling aga.not him. Since undei. I) I •:' the Court Rules hisapplication to this Court should C ; • • 'haye bsemEtde fourteen days ai:tcr he learned of the 9igb Court :rtnd. that period had already passed, it was obviàus he needed I4l *naion of time 1 whih he rightly sought from the single udgo. • '.But:'in° order for extension to be granted reasons accounting for have to be advanced. / • • • • S • 1/3 2•. '4 .4 . fl. The applicant accounted for his delay up to 21st May 1 1999 th e single judgu appears to have accepted the elanation for t1 4eriqd up to that date. However 1 it was the vie of the single . L4$ that the appJ-icaxit did not account for the period between when lie filed the application '21s 4àr 1 1999 and 17th Juneg 1999 tlw single judge. That was a period of 27 days. In order to comply with tb ecuire'inerts of Rub k3 (b) the 4 applicatiOi for extension of timo should have been made to the single 1 reckoning from jj1dge br fth Juno 1 1999 which w-z the ltfth day So, when the application was made on 17th June, .t:May1 1999. ,5-T- 1999 it was already 13 days out of time. 4 in fact he can oxplais the delay Mr. Nda.yanse told us that to the single judged nays before he filed the application for hir, an explanation to us will not help hiflL. to look at the facts 4hathapp5 in the Lu].b court on reference nd ubiiisiouS on the basis of which the sln6le judgc. made his I ' . decision. ]f the full court 'iricla th thc single judo overlooked mportant facts or aruxnts which were be fore hint ox' ho it will misoonstrUed or over) ookod r bovant lt.gal provisions 1 interfere with a decision ;-t fnti fore. But tcii.. full cotu t iill r cn k ' of the siijl...i 3udu on the basis of fiesh facts or subliiiSSiOflS I :whioh were not available to the single judge.. It' is for that ' s request to allow , roason that we declined to acoEpt he aDplicaflt 1 probably meant to ç' tm to advance additional r eons which ucrc .. -..,. . application beoro the single explain fully the delay to file hic, 'judge. 4 —k a, 1i1T. that on tho be.15jg of tho facts which wero iulo judge waa enti.tlod to strke out the on which was before him 2nd we sco no 3ust1f1cction to .nter.p1re We are,, there fore, cons trained to dismiss this with costs. t. ..'7 DkTJ1F) i+ TI\P •li! T .LL..,. ..I,. •: tLLL ta day of JUnO, 2002, 10. LH MJ'khME ', ..••,;'•-, JUSTICE • LU3UVJ Tij1T'T? C t01 7 j:" •. . Pr ': . ..nij,..; •Q) j JiLTICE OF ITPEAL ....................... 'I corti±y that this is a true copy of the original. - . 44 ,;•' A •.• .ç .,,• - a. .'•• . ............ a.' ..... • .......... , ( r L IC t .M131w1) DEPUTY ThGLSm.ft i 4 r r'u1i 'I •; :' p. I - - —