ej mmasi vs ks makundi 2002 tzhc 2052 4 december 2002

JP,T 0a? Ii'l TiiiJ .-iGu -JGT sijU- AT -IUTGL IIL3C, Cl 7 , j'JPi’L.KO* 3 / 2OO2 (Ortfinatin^ frou d/C Tr.n^a C ivil Case ITo, ^rz/lS'9^) j • liii/uji • « • * * • • * » • « • « « i*j? versus K.S.. l^JCUxQI .................... ........................... IbJ,jrU:0 1 fT flU L I 17 G XiOii’j •j.-Tj J Tv.is appl ication by ^ 0J* x to c i tho applicant* i s fo r an order fo r the extension o f -fcino to f i l e ^.n va t h i 3 court against tho oxparto jud.jonont z 3 ! von against the applicant in tlic C ivil Caso ITo«52/|99 8 of tho D is tr ict Court o f Tanga. The pray or i s sou.^it uith costs and any other r e lie f s as the court fisy doei.i iiit« The applicant according to the fa c ts deposed in jicr supporting a ffid a v it stator; that sho xioa represented by IIr« xJcaro learned counsel# The t r i c l n a jistra to in the Civil. Case iTo#52/1998 liad on the 26*10*2000 made an order f r that /u tt e r to bo heard oxparte duo to tho a p p lic a n ts non—appoarance« Tide order uaa sot aside and <?n order fo r an interpai’to hor/iin^ uado in lie u tho::-e.-:. on tho 3C;11,2000 in the Ilisc* C ivil A pplication IT0*38 o f 2000 o f tho Dict:.v.cv Court o f Tanja - ’ Annoxturc A11 ♦ IJy the 23* 1•2001 ? the s^v-o t r ia l ria;>'.strrtr in tho C ivil Case IJo#52/1 99 ^ in an intorlocutony process hold her ru lin '; i.i the M ’iioxture A1* to be in forco subject only to a rovio'.r* TAnnoxturc A21«. L was "*JltIi mi expression o f m in to n tijn to appeal a;.i'inst the ruling try cojinsol f o r tho respondent* llr# lyacan^ru The applicant further depones that v h ile fo llo ia ii;; up the ’Annoxturo A1 A2T through. nr . Alcaro’ s le t t e r o f 20,10*2001? the ’Amoxturo A3 end 4 Tj the ± jzz.:.: learned advocate learnt o f tho Ruling in the CIVIL iio. 6 o f 2001 o r ijin a tiu ^ from C ivil Case 27o# 50/97 ~ V*nnoxture LC rad the 3/:parto j ud,;;e;.r.nt in the C ivil Case ;To*52/98 both datod tho 16#5*2C01* ‘The procoss o f the CivM t ••* f/n c- Rovision tho applieant doponod was novcr served on her or her advocate and by the tir.ie c o r t ifio d orders were rucoivod well a fte r 22* 6*2001 * on the 19*11*0*1 when tine f o r apical J-md elapsed* Lastly 5 i t i s the a ly l le a n t 1 s deposition r.n - paragraph 13 o f lior a ffid a v it that her intended appo^JL Ixas over whelnins chances o f auccoodiiiG* Mr. A& iro's a ffid a v it in substance sup ports tlx appli­ c a n t ^ A ffid a v it, l Tito respondent *3 c o u n tc ^ a ffid a v it adnits para;,TapIirJ 1 - 5i 10 and 11 ' ' ' 1 ' • and*sought s t r ic t proof of para^jraP’iri 3 , 7 * 9* rjid 12 « Tlio a ffid a v it Iqy Ilr* jl 'a::-. i s net countered* I t was t h o a p p l i c a n t ’ s s u b u is s i-V i th r o u g h h e r l e a r n e d c o u n s e l Hr* A h a ro t h a t f o r p u r p o s o s o f th e app3 i c r . t i o n t h o a p p l i c a n t h a s t o show t h a t t h e r e was r e a s o n a b le o r s u f f i c i e n t c a u s e f o r th o d e la y # On t h i s t h e l e a r n e d c o u n s e l aXr. *i ’-f. on tw o su b h oa d s* On r e a s o n s f o r d e l a y i n g t o f i l e th e a p p e a l r e f e r s t o A nnc::t-.’;_*:.o A1 m d A 2 j t h o a b a n d on ed i n t o n t i o n t o a p p e a l by th e r e s p o n d e n t f o l l o w e d \rj A n n e rjtu ro s A3 t o a 6 w h ic h r e v e a l s O i v i l R e v is io n " 3To, 6 o f 2001 v jh ioii was n o t s e r v e d on t h e a p p l i c a n t and h e r c o u n s e l* I t was lie* A lc a r o f 3 s u b m s s i o n t h a t t. b u rd e n t o c s t a l i s h t h a t th e a p p l i c a n t had n o t i c e o f p r o c e s s Laid ju d ^ c u o n t w ;/j on th o rcrjponO.ont* On th e irj.-iuo o f v o o d c lia n c o s o f th e i n t e n d e d a p p e a l t o saccrxt t h e c a s e --' f *jAilk>0iT \*s (.1990) 1 1j 3 was referred to end submitted that on tho faco o f the record there were covo-^&l grounds o f law and fa ct which ;p .v c the intended apperl tho strong likohood of succor^;, Tho no n il partjfor l i s t o d as follow s : (.1) T h a t th o a p p l i c a n t tras n o t the o p p o r t u n it y t o bo h e a r d i n C i v i l i V V i s i c n N o. 5 o f 2001* (2) That in ace ordanc'j -.riih sect ion 79 ° f C iv il Procedure Code 1966 and soction 44 of "tho •.\a;4-rjtrates Court Act 110,2 o f 1$84; the t x ir l c 0urt lackod ju risd ic tio n to exerciso rcvisional proceedings# That the exportc ;jiid-'je;.vont was paoocl on tho applicants fa ilu ro to f i l e a w ritten ctateuent of defence? but tjM c’i iraL. f i l e d and rcpl.-o'i to, Th'- reply oubniaGian by tho respondent br*/- lii-i Tahir /JLi was to the O x f^ t t la t tho application vras incompetent and nincouceived slid proved that i t be 'i:>rdr?->;d ir.th cootcu Learned counrjel lis t e d eono 9 points vies ([1 )] ’That the a ffid a v it in support o f the application not shoTrin;; p o f proscribed fees? \rore not properly before the cou rt, so they should be struck out. Tliat cue court lias ju r is d ic tio n to dccide a question righ tly ’jron/jLy in la v and fa ct no 1 onj as i t hao j i ^ i r d i c t i Clo i t i s subiaittod that t,io t r ia l na^irjtrato rovision al order re./.ri .rj i;i fordo* To th is that the applicant should havo rooortcd to c .c t :...: 7:' of the C ivil xrocodure Codo 1966 in lin o Trith the provisions •'/.£ section 74 of the Code, ( ’£/ That the applicant should have f i r s t .set aside the oxpartc jud.;c:. .i- b .fo r 0 sGoic.in/-* appeal arj per the case of iIT^-JDOO V3 " j., j. . . Court Digest 326 - Siron* J# ( 3) That the applicant liad anpio tine to have tho ozparto jud,;;ci.io:it rjet aside and did not do no - A.'£L Adr.iiniatrc.tor o f E«II# A^alchr.n H ospital? vs (1963) h#C«D« 353? the appLicrnt in tir.ir barred* (4) That no reaeon fo r the inordinate delry has boon given fcy the app li­ cant uhon tho esparto jiad&enont :ras read in her presenco and T .ro.rj duly notified^, (> / In further oiibr.ii?ision> loam ed counsel subi.iitted that tho judjo^ont o f tho t r ia l iia'jistrate rcvisioiig her ou: order iras sound cinco the applicant deponed n'othing a;>-.inst i t s rnorita. (6) I t i s oubnittod that :ir« /.karo knou there *.ras no appeel ajydnst t order o f tho 23.1 *2001, so he c o r ld not hr.vo '.raitod f o r the appeal (7) That the i.ppeel court; would not ha.vo disturbed the quantu t dJV.iaJCS* (C) I t i c subnitted by counsel that a n a fiis tra tc1a ".1x0x13 d e cisio n c c-;c = amount to bias unless fa c te as so t out to demonstrate tno sar.e* any case that the same not addressed to the t r ia l Magistrate a ll cr.T her to d is q u a lify h erself* (9) L astly ? i t uas submitted that the appl i ecu it uas not d ilig e n t to pe hor remedies to se t aside tho esparto judgm ent and intended appee because she had s u f f ic ie n t tin e . But in ariy case that tho ritonclc appeal has no chance o f succeeding. In rejoin der* Hr* i.k:.ro submitted the a p p lio .jit ’ s o b je c tio n to liavin;; t respondents prcliminaity o b je c tio h s ontertained because the e s ta b lis e d rule o procedure f o r deal in ;; u ith prel iminaiy o b je ctio n s ’.ras not follow ed* lie sa b ' f o r the sane to be struck out o r disregarded* In the a lte rn a tiv e the learned counsel subi.iitted that there was no 1 aw de iandinj an in d ica t i.on o f xxiynont o f fe e s on the :C.vco o f tho a f f i d r v i t f i l i n r ; fo e s can be checked w ith tho cou rt rocord . X: any case he subr.iittcl the s a p jo rtin ;; a f f id a v it s ire re properly b u foio t.v.e '-oi.irt, Cn the respondents rep ly in Ito n 1(b) and (c ) li:-. xV-aro submitted t.'^.t re v is io n was heard esparto as sho;:n in the £nne:?:ture IJo that the rulin.-; i.ran entered in the app lica n ts (res v:>vvVcnt£) presence cn 16*5*2001 ♦ ilc wont on *. th is a p p lican t intended to appo;\l against the a p p clla b lc ro v is io n a l order* the rep ly submissions o f the respondent in Items 2 and 3* i t was submitted f the i-ttCxiDOC V3 (l^.YO) 326 caso was -.ilsconstrued* That the Hi{-’h Court had ordered the appellant to deal with reasons f o r h is fa ilu r e to $ appear fir n t before dealing vJ.i.th the P erits o f hi 2 appeal* Ho cmb-.iitted that in the present c&ue the applicant s/aa cooking to deal \.ith the n’. oritc o f intended appeal 9 therefore dictin^drjhable. The leam od counacl wont on to siifaait on the provisions o f necticn r{0 o f tlio C ivil Procouuro Codo 1 9’66 ac coapcirod ^ritli those o f aocticn 96 o:.? tlio Indies* Code o f C ivil Procedure ae consented upon by that in th is case tlio c::p.?..v doc roc xtzsj, uron ~ in lair boca/aco i t \rc\r, based on the proirlrje that tlio apilioarit (ao defoncVu.it)'- had not f i l e \rritoen ctatoncnt o f defence when i t vac not cos iJ L I ( 1 9 3 0 ) 17 ili-C/. G6 # Ro^rcYins the rc Jix-ndont *s n j$ L y in Ite^ 4 ; loam od coLined submitted the record vaa d e a r that n oit .■lor t^-i^j a pplioant nor her advocate were present at the d oliv oiy o f the departo judgement or n o t ifie d o f tlic ca.~o ac rjhcir.i hry /jmc::tiir03 /.6 ; A5 and t.’ic tria l J a jis t rates c o, it radio ti :* record. The ap plican t 13 rejoin d er cub.aicci on reiterated her absence and thrv'; --f tlio advocate on the d oliv oiy o f tlio e:cparto 3 ud^c/Jont or th e ir a".raro.*ic£>s o f .v:‘ before the 19*11.2001. L a tte r on the 4 *5*2002 !Ir» illcaro trrote to the D is t r ic t Il^ ^ e tra r apiXj. dii a c o jy >-'f a u th ority a d d itio 'a lly :>ado in support o f the a p p lica n ts anbr.iio?:; .Loiir; :: s e ctio n 70 o f the C iv il Procedure Code 1966 on esparto j'.id ;onont* The aut vorLty boin^; t ’ 10 ‘J*i aj30 0—Lx^i3w*AiIX> LTD vc VDC'T.-Im) **•! /*2LL0 if; Misc. C iv il Appeal ITo*17 o f 1999 CuuKT unrcportod. Tlio le t t e r ~:as copio r.i to the re op indent ’.rhc objected to the p: oco:j” boin,^ pleadings I'ad closed* In order to sir.pLiiiy the issue and as no in d ica tor i/as ".ir.de o f intention to s upply the aut o r it y 5 I di orchard the same* The respondent ri-patly c o;.i:'.untcd t ’lat the au t..*urity irj not bin din j 011 t ’rlrj c ourt raid iji any case the i s cue x;?.n covered* I have nado an ilndepth cuid dispassionate ytudy o f the cubhiirjr-.io;iG onthe processes complained o f in the y.pplicaticsi ro;:;ponaof3 thoroto* I trafi c l 00 able to iKsruco tho k s x z rclovcuit rocords* ........./ g I n th o r e c o r d o f th e C i v i l Case 2To*5 2 /9 3 on th e 23*1 *01 in tlio p re^ cn cc o r b o th c o u n s e ls * tli;: c o u n s e l f o r thu resp on d en t i.rtiarvced r.n i n t e n t i o n t o appoe.j. a g a in s t th o t r i a l u a ^ s t r a t o 1s o r d e r and th o n a t t e r i.'ac s o t f o r r-";:it±r-n on "ji.o 12.2*01* TMt’ion t any o t h e r p r o c e s s o f i n f o r .i a t i o a j th o no:rt r e c o r d i s th o il:p r Jud^oi'iont d a te d th o 16#>*01, The /.round bioing fed].irce Ur th e d o fc n c o t o f i f . o iT ritte n fjt a t c n c n t o f D o f-n c c . Tho s a i c f i l e indicator..: t.’ u t th o l a t t e r p ic a ;'-, iras f i l e d on th o 19*2*99 v i d e t i e iicch o q u o r l f c c . . p t P o ,0 6 0 7 4 9 4 6 /3 d a ted 1.9*1*;'. T h is d o fc n c o u as io d t o on G#3*99» I a f a c t t h e r e vras no f a i l tiro t o f i l e i f r i t t o n S tatem ent o f Dox'oncc# T Than -.n the record of t>.o C ivil Heviou Ifo«6 o f 2001 c r ig u ia tin j fr-...: O’.vrll Cr.se ’To.50/97 of tho D is tr ict Court Tcn^a - th is la t t e r original rocoi-d i s n ~fc available* This rcvioT .r process as opposed to the apporl intimated by the rosponda'i't*s counsel* lias no record o f se rv ice , The ap p lica n t’ c advocate i s recorded t o l i present, but stron^oly i s not recorded to havo submitted anyt.'. even that ho intended to f i l e a re ply J Then on a dato conviniont to the r.., v nt*s coui.irjcl theap p lica n t's counsel i s absent and uithout any sabnissiunj cl l. f o r the respondent requests fo r a rulin;; date# This rccord in rgr vie*.: did ar-t • a ay irry in volve/n or was i t intended to involve the prer.ont applicant# In fa c t t h e r e i s n o t .oven r c c o r d t o i n d i c a t e th a t e f f o r t o f s o r / i c o had been a t ie r i p t o ! by th o c o u r t b e fo r e tho 2 0 * 1 0 . 0 2 # I n j.iy c o iis id o r a t i or. o f the ar^’uojiionto by le a r n e d c o u n s e ls f o r th e p a r t ie s ? I have booa persuaded t o a ^ rco ".rith tJiat o f th o a p p lic a n t th a t th e c o a p i^ in t s l i s t e d as a c c o r d in g t o th e r e c o r d s n e ro sound* I*rocod»’.mL ru3.es in iff ouisr.do^x viGT7 ’wore f l o u t e d and in view' o f th e i l i s c . C i v i l h p p lic ;\ t i 21 l?o*6 o f 2001 \ h i^ th e t r i r l M a g is tr a te had 110 j u r i s d i c t i o n to t iy ';iv c s th e a p p l i c a n t 's i n landed a p p c..1 a v c ::y od ch a n ce o f su ccoos# A In e ll t'.ic api'l icatie:-:i for on of tib-io I find io justified* end i fJAowCu an p:cv.yod« Costs to follow t ’io ovontc* Pronounced in tho prerjent of i'Ir« /.Laro for iJ'c nt and Ur, llzi foi* t-io respondent tliiri 4th dc\>* ‘•’i' Ibccabor* 2002.