adam said kibwe vs sijali ramadhani 2002 tzhc 2041 13 september 2002

IN TH3 v'.xCi-H CCUIYT OF TANZANIA. AT IfJ?. SALAAM c r v x L p.:x7 '-CXoit i t o , 2 op 2002 ....................... .. .................................A T F L I C / H T ADAM !v /!*I - -■■ -1 V E R S U S S X J A L I r.AKV'~.'-nX RULING K.XMMIO, J * H i s = . C i v . C , Se . N o . 11 o f 2000 „ as i n s t a t e d a t the “ • * * * « * C u r t o f M aro«oro. I * * • * c u l t in w b irt * * » t ,o p l a i n t i f f HUS S i j a l i the d efe n d a n t* In * > . - • r ^ v•i s i•o n a 1l p t ,rroo cc ee ee o ' *i <p ". ', ^ = ,. '- 'e y ' < T e the a p p lic a n t ,n d 1:1,0 r a E^, p o ''1" ” r e s p e c tiv e ly . In « » « « * * * - « m e * « * — C u r t the p la in t if f t . p r -y i* * fo r a re s tra in t order s a le o f a fa m ily h w > .o ana nay 1 » a d e cla ra tio n tba a - 2 d i. . t i l l the a d m in is tra to r o f the esta te o f one H a va n a n , A c tu a lly , to » . i t stran se, why the Case sh ou ld be t it le d M is c e lla n e o u s C iv il Case in s te a d of C iv il Case B o . 11 of 20 0 0 . The is a su it and not m erely an * * > l « « * t o n . T h is is a m atter w h ich too H eo id en t M a g istra te in C h , r Ge o f M o r^ o ro D in trie t sh o ,ld lo o k in to . The eases m ust * . SC-ven proper d e sc rip tio n , «= . « t » U . X B e i ^ y may nBd W bein ^ ^ W a- ¥ h i l e t h e c ^ s s uns ;;oinrj on, t h e d e f e n d a n t s o l - tb^ j ~u x. ., ^ — t t a r of tbs s u it* The s a l s t^ols p l ' i c e which form* t h e s u b j o o t - u t - r 01 ^ d e sp ite th ere b e in - a ten rorary in ju n c tio n re s tra in in g - - W e n the case was o l i o * on 19/ X O A O O l , Mr T , s l l ! n , »b.c, « = re p re s e n tin g the p la ia t lff a p p lie d fo r le a v e to add ' “ ° * hsr d efen d a n t in the s u it. A t Vast th is is what I .a tb e r fr o . the , „ t sen ten ce o f the , r o c e e d i n S. in Hr T a slim a -s « ,T »i«x = m . The d efen d a n t o b jec ted to tbo a p p lic a tio n and tho case .a . » 3 jour ned T o t ** ir u l-u s* _ i t i c^ cl ntO"t c In h er r u lin g , th« trxal ^ . , lo tr " “e c — ^ _ h e r s e lf to t h e p r a y e r which was made b y H r . T a s l i n a . ns e * » it 1 . e -owr « . , t » h . t Mr. t f l t e . M !-r ,^ for M . l « « .t,rt .« « **>. » * » w o o sly , t l *a * G o in c T:y «h o court record ,tb ie is not w b «t M r. T* s it® * bo prayed fo r, Th> t r i , l n , 3: i e t r , t 9 » * o t , h « d ’ -.*!« «>• s u i t ,r ^ r l- * il* . * » t sin ce thare N . P ro 'cta , n i No. ICO o f 1997 x l r e ^ y fil«3 , * « t t a i t l 3 P ” * 9" f0 r by i - . t b T ' O u A t h O P l C O l ^ t ® ^ Cl d F r T ^ sli^ n b*id tc be pursueo w r o u ^ j _ « -» ^-r i q q 7 4 3h,e ^;3 l d tli^t the s u it A d m in istration ^ u e e N o # 1'.j0 o i 19 j ( * w^s res jyd ic~.t^« The r - u l i a c o f t b e b ri*l court is «b »t b , a prompted, the ! lin g of * :« » . r e v is io n s ! p r o c d l o c . -:ey * * » been f i l e d by Kr T « l i = ^ L o m o : Advocte, under 5«eti5BO 79(1) ■»»« » of t b e C i v i l Pr oc odu re Code#i r . ^ . » 3 w e l l =ic “ e c “ ' :iL' o f th M agistrates Courts A c t 19s ^ « X do n o t know why t b e A d v o c a t e ban c h o o o o n t o c ite both the p r o v i s i o n s u n d e r t h e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Code * a <5 t h e M agistrate C o u r t s A c t t 19^k b e c a u s e t h e y c a t e r f o r A ffe re n t circum stance. TJhereas a r e v i s i o n u n d e r t h e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Coc .3 1> ° ±a restricted to ju ris d ic tio n , under th e M a g is tr a te Courts A ct 19 it covers a ll circum stances w h e r e an i n j u s t i c e -as -■ee n do ne * advocate oupt t o be c l e a r whether n i s c ^ : 1r _ n . f a l l s under p rovision s in t h e C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Code 66 o r u n d e r t h e M a g i s t r a t e . C o u rt A c t r a t h e r than ju st doing * guess work. Th e main r e a s o n given for seeking f o r a re visio n is that t h e r u l i n g wirioh was g i v e n is irregu la r and ,-s errors m a t e r i a 1 on t h e f a c e o f «b » record in vo lv ir : in ju s tic e . The h e a r i n g o f the r e v i s i o n was c a r r i e d b u t b y w r i t t e n su bm issions» I thank both Mr, T a s l i m a , Advocate and t h e respondent fo r **:-3ir su bm ission st The respondent has jf^issd a pralx-ii 7 o . ^ j e c fc^-on o n 3e v e r a ! poin ts which X must c o n f e s s do uofc f a l l w ith in m atters vbich can I ® a r g u e d b y w r i t t e n subm ission. X a* in total • q g r e a m o n t '?ith. t h a s u b m i s s i o n made b y M r . T a s l i n a on t a x 3- aspect* 3 i * l. * ^ o pon'f'inG'3 ^ o poin ts of Tb*t * p relim in a ry o b j e c t : - ,- .<u-t oo cun- v o,ay . » r o « n o t be f o l v e a » i « - t ™ ~ than t h e m a t t e r car. n r , bo r a i s e d « « prelim in ary = ^ 3^ - o»«a o f Mu'Kisa — • - . ^ ^ ^ t o f l n e Co. H V y » . '•?- B^stEibut2Z a T ^ 7 ?96i 7 = ./- 596 c i t . d by Mr . X . U * Si « . olaborativo oxplanatt , n «hat o -.M titu tM a pr<,lx*x..».ry b jo c t io n . Tho points r a i s e - by th . respondent . « . » * b. r 90„ lv .d prolin.Ki.ry = : je c ti.n o because they . » natters • t ^ v r -..r, -j-% -I r*ourt c^n ro solv© th®®.• rb ic b requ ire evxdetics o o , ^ c.^urt *_-. ^ T j: —i t s ° l f • I must say tb^t it X iQ ^ r^ ia^ t,i© -1 - 0 + , - , m erit. Tho r o c r i *r t b , tria l court Is ve ry » l « r that K -. T a s l i n a has ,» » o - t * r leave to « u i tho p l a i n t so taot , B tb .r j« r t y = « b« iro 3 j ‘ Jhon t h o „ a - i s t r a t e » a d e a. 1-u’ i n g , she d i v e r t e d from ; lo w ® “ !’ i o h " =' s h o f o r ® h o r started a d re s s in s other o t t e r s o f tho s u i t b ein ,; r e ^ . C ' f and an a p p l i c a t i o n tz sta rt a fresh . O b v io us l y those m atters wbioh had n o t boot, r a i s e d w i arsued b e f o r e nor. V h ,t she had t o r e s c l v o • « = the issu e of »= r.3 * n t o f too . p la in t to ad:: a u t h o r defendant. By a d r e s s i n s an x o . u a uhich » „ not ra is e d tho t r i a l rcagistrato acted «ith m a terial i r r e g u l a r i t y Uo 3 o r s e c t i o n 7 9 ( l ) ( c ) o f the C i v i l P r m * . Code, 19^6* 1 quash t h e r u l i t v : Cnto: 5/12/2001 and o r d e r a p r o p e r ru lin g „t„o d o v^rxx/u< u - l t t e»».> - . adT-ooc • < ^ -. the i s s u e vihich uas r a i s e d , ju_ V H " + -5 o *h r. 4 s s u g o f l M v e t o arasnd t h o b y t h o a . i v o c ^ i - o * i n - , - p la in t »ith a view of .-K o c aaathcr defendant. Tho c a s e to be placed b e fo r e another u a r i c t r a t a with ccp eton t Ju rx^xctxon. It is so ordered. 13/ 0 9 / 2 0 0 2