mussa sagamiko vs sethlymo 2003 tzhc 69 18 february 2003

I N THE H IG H COURT OF T A N Z A N IA . DAK jiS SALAAl^i D I S T R I C T R E G I S T R Y A T PAR £ S 3 AT. f i a m c i v i l C a s e n o 8 7 o f 19 9 2 H I S S A s a g a m i k o * ....................._ ....................-^APPLICANT VERSUS s e t h l y m q ________ RESP QNDENT R U L IN G I H M a . j On 22nd February 2001 this Court -m, a p p lic a tio n f o r extension o f time ' . 0 a-ro T T + ■ W li* * ? . 01 * » « aga in st the d ecision o f ^ ' d e c l i n i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e v i ~ - d a t e d ^ 29/ 10^ 1^ *h * a fo r e s a id aPPl i Cat'ion „ hp„ 1 ^ served d e fa u lte d appearance on t- ■ ^ ^ f o r th e r e s p o n d e n t was p r e s e n t c." ~+h ^ h a a I'“ e ' . M l' K aste u n ljyg u ; he was not presen t on 1/11/S0K)^ \ ? * ‘W a * ae* ^ th o u g h hearin g on 22 /02/2001 . i r c n < c » - - m ° liC 8 't:L°n was s e t advocate f o r the -y.'.ri * •yi Junciu learn■ed ~ y . C Vf,£} 3 1' i r p o / . , m = * i M 1i o a t w th e ll''2000 an d ' ' to M r - K Afthipm ^ F ollow ing the d ism issal o f the .... p ro secu tio n , the a-oplic„nt *W la c k o f a p p lic a tio n and has a d v ^ + H * M 8 t W a * « > ° * the the date o f hear i n s * * * - » * » * th at 22nd February 2001. Both oru,J'r }’ 2001. and not ' to t h e ir sworn evidence n a v e ^ w r r e d ^ a t V <" 1VD0* t * ' H* * * * > ¥ appeared on 23/ 2/2002 Just to f Jr <l“ t U l <U J ' ' Previous day. They have n- t re a rin g was’ on the evidence o f the u n a is c v- SUiJp° r t ° ’i th e i^ asse rtio n by on 23/2/2002. a i ^ e a c o u r t c le rk , hoai they met Be as I t nay the court «, h ea rm g in the presence o f K ? jZ\ c le a r « » t absence o f Mr. K a s h u n b u ~ u - **~U J''ia‘"n c j A--‘Vooate and In Mr Jundu i s not t , , l l n , f “ sd 2 * * February 2001 fix e d f o r 23rd F e b r u a ^ 2001 “ p , , Sayin:J th s t he“ ’in g was respondent i s s u e l on ^ ~ " ' 7 13,8 summons to the Mr- Kashumbugu on 23/11/soon ^ ° ° ' n& rtceived by . • the date of hearing. '~ ulVes -2nd February 2001 as In the circumstances I r e f i l l a vtaced by both Mr Jundu and hi a° Cep* the reasons .■ a p p lic a tio n f o r r e s t o r a t io n rP ‘ t “ ^ o f the m atter I have every reason t ■ T ” ^ baokSr °und to th is h i s advocate are p la y in g a g ^ l f T l ^ ^ 3PPUcant « * fr u s t r a t e and d elay the ends o f • aying ta o « c s to to be d etested and condemned by ^ ° ° ndUCt i s warned a c c o r d in g ly . co u rt and the p a r t ie s are In the Premise the anm-i^ +■ « i t h c o s ts . 6 ■P P U ° a t l “ r e s t o r a t io n i s I t is so o rd e re d . !>l-VXAV s . Ihema JUiXril 22/7/2002 18/2/200?$ Coram;- P. S. K. Mutungi DR For Applicant; — Absent; For Respondent; - A b s e n t £ourt. The Ruling is marked read o f the absence f the. p a rt ie s though d u lly served. F. S. K, Mutu:agi * . ^GI3TRj:Ji 18/2/2003