mussa sagamiko vs seth lymo 2002 tzhc 2017 22 july 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAti hS SALAAl^i D ISTR IC T REGISTRY AT PAR £ S SA Lh m c i v i l C a s e n o 87 o f 19 9 2 h i s s a s a g a m i k o . . .............. * .................. .APPLICANT VERSUS SETHLYMQ___ .................................... * ....................— RSSP QNDENT RULING On 2 2 nd F e b r u a r y 2001 t h i s C o u r t -m, a p p lic a t io n f o r e x te n sio n o f time ' a-ro T T + ■ W li* * ? . 01 * » « a g a in s t the d e c is io n o f ^ ' d e c l i n i n g an a p p li c a t i o n f o r r e v i ~ - d a t e d ^2 9 / 1 0 ^ 1 ^ * h * a f o r e s a id aPPl i Cat'ion „ hp„ 1 ^ served d e fa u lt e d appearance on t - ■ ^ ^ f o r the respon den t was p r e se n t c." ~+h ^ haaI'“ e ' . Ml' Kasteunljygu; he was n o t p r e s e n t on 1 / 1 1 / S 0K )^ \ ? * ‘ W a * ae* ^ t h o u g h h e a rin g on 22 / 02/2001 . ir c n < c » -- m ° li C 8 't:L°n was s e t a d v o c a t e f o r th e -y.'.ri * ~ y • Junciu le a rn e d . C Vf,£} 3 1'irpo yi /. , ■ = * i M 1io a tw the l l ' ' 2000 ^ ' ' to Mr - K Afthipm ^ F ollow in g the d is m is s a l o f the ...... p r o s e c u t io n , the a-opil c „n t *W la c k o f a p p lic a t io n and has a d v ^ + H * M 8 tW a * « > ° * the £ * » t e o f h e a rin g * * * - » * » * th a t 22nd February 2 0 0 1 . Both oru,J'r }’ 2001. and n o t ' t o t h e i r sworn evidence n a v e ^ w r r e d ^ a t V <" 1VD0* t * ' H* * * * > ¥ appeared on 23 / 2 /2 0 0 2 J u st to f Jr <l“ t U l <U J ' P reviou s d a y. They have n- t f a r i n g was’ on the eviden ce o f the u n a is c v - SUiJp° r t ° ’i t h e i ^ a s s e r tio n by on 23/ 2/ 2 0 0 2 . a i ^ e a c o u r t c le r k , hoai they met Be as I t nay the cou rt «, h earm g in th e p resen ce of K? jZ \ c le a r « » t absence o f M r. K a s h u n b u ~ u - **~U J''ia‘" n c j A--‘Vooate and In Mr Jundu i s n o t t , , l l n , f “ sd 2 * * February 2001 f i x e d f o r 23rd F e b r u a ^ 2001 “ p , , Sayin:J t h s t h e“ ’ in g was resp on d en t i s s u e l on ^ ~ "'7 13,8 summons to the M r- Kashumbugu on 2 3 / 1 1 /s o o n ^°° ' n&r t c e iv e d by . • the d a te o f h e a r in g . ' ~ u lV es -2n d February 2001 as In th e circu m stan ces I r e f i l l a v ta c e d by both Mr Jundu and hi a° Cep* th e rea son s .■ a p p lic a t io n f o r r e s t o r a t io n rP ‘ t “ ^ o f the m a tte r I have every reason t ■ T ” ^ baokSr °und t o t h is h i s ad vocate are p la y in g a g ^ l f T l ^ ^ 3PPUcant «* f r u s t r a t e and d e la y the ends o f • aying t a o « c s to to be d e t e s t e d and condemned by ^ ° ° ndUCt i s warned a c c o r d in g ly . c o u r t and the p a r t i e s are In the Premise the anm-i^ +■ « ith c o sts. 6 ■P P U ° a t l “ r e s t o r a t io n is I t is s o o rd e re d . !>l-VXAV s. Ih e m a JUiXril 22/7/2002 1 8 / 2 / 2 0 0 ?$ C o ra m ;- P . S . K . M u tun gi DR F o r A p p lic a n t; — Absent; For Respondent; - A b s e n t £ o u rt. The R u lin g i s m arked re a d o f th e a b se n c e f the. p a r t i e s though d u l l y s e r v e d . F . S . K , Mu tu :ag i * . ^ G I 3 T R j:Ji 18/ 2/2003