c g jensen vs hamisi omary chagile 2003 tzhc 60 9 may 2003

C I V I L R E V I S I O N 37 O F ?00* c. G„ J m s m A/s ....... . •- A F j?LIC/iN T Versus K A M 2 E I 0 M 8 Z CKAGILv r ».0., c . .. O N DSN? R IT L _I F a LUANDA j; ^ »»;11:;r r c s r * and/-- - T ^ r r f ? a P P liC S ti° n * a p p lic a tio n h er:; beers made the 20/7/99 and its s$ l$ i u o n t a /, . . ITZ f !he tr“1 COUrt- " » * — 6 ecis:ion of the trii?l court dated ■ * decisions. I will attempt to erplnin. In the Resident M a g i s t r a t e s ' Court nf n t ^ i Hamls C ^ y Chagile C h e s t e r referJto " Z r I - -suit againrt C.G.Je, Sen A/S (hereinafter r e L r l , Z T T , ^ claiming a sum cf Tshs. 3,899 075/- all • " 6 7>P C5nt) * • * * u - t filed be hiP terai1”1 be”efits' lartaers ( Cr eates) . ' **«• the WSD the Applicant rsl-ied two preliminary objec+ioc on th questions of competency of the tri,,] ool!„t ,D(? +1, “ ^ I th't the suit „,s tine b-rec’ ■ ' " tl“ “ °* s u b m is s io n s * B o th p a r t i e ! “ 7 * d lr e 0 te i *» *> • » * « « filed t hrough Mr. K u ^ h a lea T Z mXitn ^ %P l i<=ant personally a r u ij B* 3^ « * W e d hi, (h . * r uphold ^ r the r ;1st? ground ” “ v ,nd * 11-d *i -s *c e ad e the trisi ■ -c-se. entire - * She said this, I quote:- ff T r In the circumstances the. -fs‘ -r.~4- . . ‘lces* the flr^ gro u n d o f preliminary objection ip u-oheld J .. ' P d ' ,Jlr}Ge thls co* t doe,snot have S ^ S S ^ S * jurisdiction to entertain the ,«it I w U not deal with the second ground of objectiott. SUlt 13 for lftck of jurisdiction*” The ruling ?«i*v>> je _ _ • *w#- * V!Be delivered on po/7/oo p^f +v is an order to the effect * w + h * , /'VV9. Tut there ca.se ,0 come for mediation on 19/ 8/99 What a procedure? Let me reproduce the entry of the court for case reference: 20/ 7/ 99 : Cor am : E.G .Hblse Plaintiff: Present in Person Defendant: Mr. Kugesha. £2222 “Ruling delivered this 20/7/99 in the presence of the plaintiff in person and in the presence of Mr. Kugesha advocate for the defendant. E.G.Mbise Signed. MR. K U G E S H A W e pray to try to settle the matter by mediation. 1 Mediation hearing on 19/8/99. E.G.Mbise SIGNET-’ 20/7/99 On 19/ 8/99 Mr. Mbuya Resident magistrate presided over the case. Mr. Mudemba, learned counsel appeared for the Applicant and he reiterated his colleague position in that the court h»d no jurisdiction. The presiding learned magistrate said, I quote:- Court: The same issue relating to jurisdiction was handled by ray colleague Mrs Mbise ift'i on 16/7/99. She was satisfied that the court has ample powers of handling this suit. If the deft was c:.nr~*ie^) the r.v^&^s was open for him to appeal against the order* MR. MUHDEEA: I wish to appeal to the High Court so the issue of jurisdiction of this court be tested before we proced. Court: The prayer is hereby granted. Order : Mediation is hereby adjourned sine die pending the outcbr;.6 appeal. M bu y a , (underscoring mine) Signed 19/8/1997." 3 But Where did h e get th»t, Mr. Mbuya knows. Be that as it m y it would a p p e a t n o appeal was lodged. O n 6/12/2000 in the pr e se nc e o f ’ the respondent, the case was fixed to come for mediation on 25/ 1 / 200? and notice was to issue to the Applicant. O n 25/1/2001 the Applicant were absent, the Hespondent woe present. T h e case was adjourned till on 23/2/2001. And on 23/2/2001 Mr. Kab I c * . counsel for the ' pplic'.^t from a L aw firm known as E'-iMA & Co ■ f< voctte,, appeared. Mr. Kabakam, prayed f.r , * » to oheck the H e w a s granted. A nd w h e n the case he explained the status o f the case and the way it was '•'i-’ . 1-rrtT W " r_,.r m *. *r•r, i . Mr<> Kabak^mfl attempted to expunged from the record proceedings after the decision of 20/ 7/99 by w a y o f re view but to no avail. M ea n while the Respondent applied for e xecution o f the decree. Mr. Kabak,m, filed an application for stay without being heard, hence this application. Mr. K-lunga learned counsel who appeared for the Respondent in raised an .bjection in that the application for T T " U tine b S r r e d - M r - ' « « « » '’ ‘Su e d with force s aying time star t ed to run from the date of the decision there of ie PO/7/99 T h e application ought to be made w i thin to days ie latest b v 20/9/99. JJUfl applica ti o n was filed on 3/4/2003 vide E O T 1 8 1 7 3 1 ® . al - T i f !”T ” " °n t h ° othOTlMld said h ® « » ttae. H e relied inter la’ • 9 ’ °f the Lsv' o f Limitation, 1971 in that time for awaiting p r o c e e di n gs should be exeluded. B u t he didnot s a y when he g ot the • proce e di n g* . In a n y case attaching a co p y o f p r o c e e d i n g i« „Jt a condition p r e ce d en t in f i u ^ r e v i s i o n a l , p r o c e e d i n g . O n , ean even m ov e the court in resisional pr oceeding even b y a letter. . . "r* argument sound a t t r a c t i ® , but I ,« afraid to say It is erronous. Die r e cord is very clear that court proceeding* were terminated, on 20/7/1999. Whatever followed thereafter i* a nullity OTd o f no legal effect. I am of the settled mind that time cannot start to run f t ™ a decision which in the first place ought nit to » entered. Time cannot st-rt to run from decision which is a nullity. - *ntb that " decision" m a y apply for revisional, n ot wi t h stafldng the tine jn making s u c h application has elapsed. * - E x e r c i s i n g r e vi si o ns ! powerp of *. r r r - * * - the - ■ - > - * ~ :r jr;he - * T n ~ : i : r ed 02 i2 2 L r t the stands* O f Ourisdictxon “ a l '00,lrt 0f « — * * the ~uit for ^ T he s a m e is al lo w ed w i th coRts. Ruling delivered, Mr. Kalunga Absent. for the Respondent Applicant t i\ M j\ ■,« y\ . \ f K^riSSdT' ' ' V JITlGE ^ 9/06/2003