fadhila mohamed gugu vs mohamed mashamu mpoto 2003 tzhc 62 23 may 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA OAR ES s a l a a m l CIVXjj AFPEAL NO. 216 OF 2002 , A . -W. MOSHI .... « ................. * * • ...............APPELLANT Versus EDSON J .S .K K I S I ...... RE3P ONDENT J U D G M E N T SMANGWfl. .T; of IIl al l ^a Sa att SS ^ o r PP!al Samora agalnSt Avenue, whichth£ was°rdei" made 0;f on th£ D1Strict 14th June C° Urti which judgment was en tered f oU1r the bne p l- in t if- tixpf a s Pr^vpd * -in B P -L d in summary suit and the c o u r t s subsequent refusal to set it „ on 25th October, 2002. aSlde The main issue ln this appeal ^ acted properly both in law and in fact •* D l s -n c t Court for the Plaintiff on 14th June, 200 2 . JUd® ”nt oourtffo'de0; ^ T * * * * *» p l a i n t i f f i s erroneous f n, h • * “e^ n to judgment f o r the Secondly, he su b m i4 4 - +, aVlng ° 6en made on a:, mention d a te . 7, s u o m % th a t rhe c o u r t 's r e fu s a l t o s e t o c c a s io n a l • COU ^ s r e -LUs a l t o s e t i t a sid e occasion ed a m m is is c c a a rria rria g g e o e o f ju f iuc+i^n e on the fa c e -,f th J u s tic ee as s t ic as ii tt con con tain tain ed ed an an e r r o r uut? xace ox the record * The respondent, Mr. J .S .H k is i who app-^r-H itl „ „ r t e d the c o u r t 's main ord er o^ " P erson suppo- June pnnQ u 1 lriS judgment f o r him on 14th June 2002. He subm itted th a t ” appellant "who :QC a, the r lie r ordered by the co u rt and — - - — - n r : : In ord er to r e s o lv e the main t o go through the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' ^ tlllS apP e a l * 1 decided e a r lie r 1 " - - o c ee^ s and found th a t e a r l i e r b e fo re is s u in g the ord er v^-'ch ^ +1 -ch i s the main s u b je ct o ■ion supported by a ffid a v r ; r y , . Tc defendant „ : r f ro r u n co n d itio n a l le a v e +n defend the s u it - - ° n a l le a v e to appear and tue s u it which i s d escrib ed t o h under s u g a r y P ro c ed u re. ‘ erron eo^ y f i l e d This a p p lic a tio n was fix e d fc re c o rd shows th a t t h is a p p U o a U ™ I - s r f T I K3J’ ^ in s te a d o f h ea rin g i t , thG t r l a l ma„ i s * r a t e , " e a r l i £ r flX e d * Proceeded t o ord er f o r the - defen ce to be 11164 “y 10tl1 JUne' 2002' “ «T ^ 14th June, 2002 and T-s i m e n t i o n on tile san«2 date. r jl Juns> 2o° 2 ’ « » P l a i n t i f f s t a t e d qs fo llo w s . . - ' 1 n 0 t aP P ea r . Then, the % £ -d a fen d a »t«.h a 'S f a i l e d t o f l i , sta tem en t o f d e fe n c e t " 1113 w r it t e n P e r summary s u it .n P &y f o r judgment as ^ o l l T o 2 8 : T iS P r a y e r * * ^ m a g is tr a te made the Xj&tsx1 o n , Tvrr t ~ t ~t ^ * . . . Magist r a te on groimd • ' I " the first instance ■the J T - — « t e r mine the ^ - W aP P e a r and defend the s u i t ' w ^ ^ ^ u n c o n d i t i J n a 3! I n n y judgment, I think 1* a t the ^ 1?SUi,ig °ther orders, - e t r i a l m a g istra te on 27th Ma 2 ° r e r wlli?h- v as is s u e d by " to f i l e his written statement i l l tte defendant “ law « i t .hould not have b«fi> ^Jun e, 2002 was granting the said W U W t t e T ^ and 2002 the » ! * * ■ * * * J iu r t -s .o r d w v * . o" l i +h + 4-K JUdgiaqpt ^ as entferei-'-*^ ' - “ h June> that the defendant had not f i l e d h t “ ™ £ £ ? £ < ? xt lras bad in L a w and * * ¥ “* * » “* to: „ t **“ ' ^ F . cannot be ypheld. ■ ' '\ ... -.£-,- af n a t u r a l l y “iw-th, J u n^e pnno t f y f ibbe b J mt>Mvo t ’ 1 Sll8>' ^ t o th e r > - \ d i r e c t th a t th e _ c a s = r l i 'M a g is tr a te on ... th e D i s t r i c t C ou rt o f i l a l , ' ' r Sv.. f i l e . should be re tu rn e d hearing the applicatioti « « i s t r a t e f o r ' ^ * .... - 2 7 th M a y , 2002 and t h e " ^ ^ ° - d * the oTurt on suit between the p a r t l e , J t0 “ til the r U s own costs. Xlr ’ ^ ^ i . l e d . E a E h p a r t y .q D e liv e r e d =*+- n. Presence of'Mr ]»> , “ * » U S T t h ^ y . of „ - ‘ ^ g a l o , A d v o c a te f b V ^ ' ^ a cn , 2003 in th e “ the r « P ° ^ ^ t nr. ln the pre-