kibwe vs ramadhani 2002 tzhc 11 13 september 2002

VERSUS SIJALJ: :-:'0;: r.--:" 'JT! •••••••••••••••••• RZSPQLi::lJ:HT Misc.Civ.CI\se.No. 11 of' 2000 ""'IS tnst.i~tad lilt the Diatx'tct CJurt of' Maroporo. It iG .q :::;~~itin whi •.h A,d""mS~iA Jti'bwe is t"}CC) pl",intif'f' ~nd Sijqli :::'~m~::~h.qnithe def'enc1qnt. In tho::;o r;visi~·nql procee~inr;o, cell ey"\re the ::tp:pt-u.~l'1t "ad the respon:'ont respectively. In tho c:~i-:~p'1ic:h WqS file::1 qt the Distr:Lct C )urt the plqintif':f is pr~y:"t'.!.g for q restrqint ord~ qG'~inst s-'tle of' III :fqmily h':)'.150 ,,-cd r:v~ybe 1'\ de<H",rqtion th",t he is still the·",dmtnistrqtor o£ tbe ostqte of one n"=lmQ:1hqni Ic;::1i. Actu~l!y. to ~G it q~p~"\rs strqnee, Why the QqSG sho~18 be titled Miscellqneous Civil C~se tnsteqd of'Civil CqS0 l~o. 11 of 2000. The C~S9 io ~ suit qno not merely qn I'\Pklic~tion. This is q mqtter wDich tho 2oni~ent Mqgistrqte in Cbqrgs ~~ the Mor')g~,ro Dintriet shoL~lj J.oo1-t into. The cqses must PG given proper de15,.riJ;>tion, othOrt--lis';;, t'hra .tvil. zagia.t;t-y mqy rmd up beinif~8~. irlhi1e the OqSO W<lS :;oin'S :)n, the def'Gn:hnt 501:1 the house - wbich :t'crms thG subjoot 7:.i-,'bter ?'£ tb e suit. The sllle t )olt pl~ce despite there beinS ~ ta~?o~~ry injunotion r~etr~inin~ the sllle, . "Whenthe cqse WH3 cp,llo:~ on 19/10fOO1~ Mr 'I'~s~i~q~ll1o \[II'\S representing the pl.q~~tiffqppliod for leqvo to qdd qnothar dGf'endqot in the suit. At l:'\st thi.s is whqt I g~tber :from the l"\st sentenc.a of tbe :-:/.'oceeding. in Iir Tstslimq t s submission. I'ho de:fen~",nt objectod t,:, tl"'lO Fl:?:.,l.i.eqtion qnd the cl'\se WqG "'djourned f'or ~ ruling. In :-:(i;)rr'...11ing, the triql m~c;iGtr:'"\,te C:i~; not confine herself to thB pr~yer which wqS m~de by Mr. Tqsli~~. Inste~d. it is 8~own thqt wh~t Mr. Tqslimq ~~d ~rqyed for WqS leqve to st~rt the o~it ~fresh ~"ecquse the suit t"l::'\S wron:;ly filed. GoinC ;:y tho court record ,this is not tlb<>t l1r. T"lslimq hl'\d prqyed for. 1'1'1~ trt::lll mll\~:;ict!"qt9 w,mt "\he<'\c1 l'\ncl "::;:::1:: -':1:""t the suit w~s 'I'lr::mGly f:'.,led. Thl'\t since there •• 5 Pr07-:;'-'tte qn:::' Administrl!ltion ~"\uGe No. 180 of 1997 ~lreqdy file~. whqt N0D being pr~yad for by I·lr. Tll\sli'-,~!'ll bqa to be pt,trsuecl through tbe Prob-;te qnd Administr-"tion C"'use No. l:JO of 1997. She'::;sld th"'lt the suit wqS res judic~tq. Tho ruling of' tbe::;riql court is 1,'(Cqt l~"'S :'rompted, the "Jf t::CSG revision'll 1'::"lio[;' proceedinr:s. T:,ey bqve been filed by Mr Tqslic~ LoqrnG_ Advocqte, under SectiooG 79(1) I'\nd 95 of the Civil Procedure Codefl~'(.·C' ~s well ~.:::;.':,?)c't::.)c41", of' the MRsistrqtes Courts Act 1934. I do Dot knot,,' why the AdvoC"lte hqn cho.):JGn to cite both the provisi.:mn under tbe Civil Procedure Co:::e "',n::~tho r{qgistr~te Courts Aot, 1984 bao~uee tbey o"'lter :fo!' ::ifferent circumst::lnce. \Jhere~s ~ revision under the Civil PrococJ· ... 1re COC;G 1966 is restrictea to jurisCiction, under tile M~~istr~te Courts Act 1984 i.t covers "~ll circumstl'\nces ~Ibere ~n inj'.Jsticc ~::"lS l-::'eeo done~ The .l'ldvoc~te OU:;;2t to be cle'lr whethor 1.113 c~>!'nrlJ:':'l.nt f'qlls under the provisions in the Civil Pro.sauro Code 66 or un~er the M~gistr~ta Court Act r~thGr th$l\n just cl')ing :"\ guess I,I?!,,:::. The m~in re"s;':>n eiven for see':rinL;' fer ~ revi::d.on is th~t the rulin~::; ~'J~ ich toll'lS given is irregul"'r <::n:' ';'''5 errors m~tari~l on the f"lce of tb~ record icvolvi~ injustice. Th.e he",riftg ot tbe revision w~s Cqrri8:::~·'.,t 'by written submiss:LotUi. I th~nk both Hr, T~sli~, L:1v:)c:-:taqUG the respondent for t~air 5u~missions •. Th0 responrJent h~5 J.-::lisad l'\ pral:L'"i,-:,,:r:;- ':):::jec'tion on 3evorr;l p:::>ints t'I~:ich I must confess ::10 liO!) f"".l: wLtl:in M"ltters qgreOlnont "litl".! t:13 submission lJlqCle by E:r. T":slir:,,~ on tbi.s- l'\spect. Tb"lt :'\ preli..min"lTy obj :-:c·:~·_~.,u:Jt be Qc"'nf'iQo-: t~ points of 1:,\1'"cmly. Where :'\ny m"lttor c~n not be :r:esolve~J "itbout evidence then the mqttor 0·"'10 n-'c :>3 Y'::).i50d :'\s &:lpreliminqry :)bj:;ct:L,: .• Th . 0 Cqse .p M ,. 0.1. UK'l.S::)' ....,. ..J...., '-''1.'::;C'_13.0 ••• .•...!'1.nu:.~'1C 5( t U£1.nc:;o, . Lt :J'V s. 'T(,as t;:i'"'-"ne,., ...-. ••..• ••••• _ .r--- 'pistributori Lt::'1 jJ..96:il E.L 696 cited by Nr. T'1slim<t Gives ~n el~b0r~tiva explqn~ti : ~n wh~t c0nstitutes ::).pralimin~ry cbjoction. The points ~:q",sC'J ~)y tbe res;)on __ ~ant c::).nnot be =:·asolvea l'\S prolimin'1ry :.,",j:.;cti-:ns beC"\USG they qTO mAltters t:,bich require evic:encG bot' '::,~:,tho c:,urt cqn res')lve tho,",. Regqrding t~e "Ip~lic t~~n itself, ~ must s::).y tbqt it I·, marit. The rOC.)T: ':.:C 'c':l::, tri"ll e.)urt is vary elGAlr thAt Iv; , T::lslimq h&:ls "!sl{S" Lx;: :f.J,"va to ~'.llen:--'tho plqint so th"'lt t<-Jhieb w,,-,snot r~isec.:l the t:!'i"ll m"lgistT"lto "Ieta:] \-1ith m",t'3ri~1 irregul"lrity under saet·.;.~n 7J(1}(c) of' tb~ Civil Pr:)c,;)::.'ure Code, 1966. ruling to bo viri tten"'l ::::lroGc "~:" t~1 G iSSUG I-J!:J ich w"'\ s rqi.soC' by the AldV0C&:lte. Th<".t i6 tbe ::'ssue :)I l;}qve to .qmerJc t:'1v p1"iint with q view of .;;)<':;1:',0 '1:::l~·th0r r~eferJ:j8ot. The eqG.': to be p1"1ced b-at':Jre "1o<)t:,ar J:l.........0 tr'1 'to wi tb ccmpot GO t ju::..~iG:~iction. It is s~ ~rcered.