iddi mulunzi another vs club manager tcc sports social club 1994 tzhc 410 1 january 1994

E f rHii HIC&I 30UHT OF T M & y iA AT 13 .lad SALAi&l MLjCMJ^'JOIJS CIVIL-APPLICATION .m’0. 15 OF 1 QQA IDDI iCUEDNZl & ^O TIIiiR ............................... APPIJfl/iiJT/APPBF.T.AffPfl ViidiSUtj CLUB ELiJtfACMt T.CoC. iiB0BT3 & s o c ia l club ....................................... itdapofirjjasn? H U L I i Q.i MACKACTa , J . t T h is i s an a p p lic a tio n f o r le a v e to appeal out o f tiffie~ ag ain st th e judgment and d e cree o f th e lo w er c o u rt. That ju&gnent was d e liv e re d on 25t h May 1993 and th e a p p lic a n ts were inform ed o f t h e i r l i g h t o f appeal# They do jq&tygdLsputc th a t m a tte r. I n s te a d o f a p p ea lin g th e y lo d g ed an a p p lic a tio n f o r rovi©’.- in .rhich. th e y r a is e d mat t o r s which were co m p le tely extenuous to t h e i r r ig h t o f appoal* I t i s no t my i n t e n t i o n to d is c u s s t h e m e rits o f t h a t a p p lic a tio n . S u f fic e i t to say t h a t i t was d ism isse d i n a r u lin g which i s n o t datod* I t was a f t e r lo s in g th e a p p lic a tio n f o r rev iew t h a t th e a p p lic a n ts f i l e d t h i s a p p lic a tio n on 3 1 st J a n u a ry , 1994* The a p p lic a n ts seek: to j u s t i f y th e d e la y by deponing i n p a ra g rap h 7 o f t h e i r j o i n t a f f i d a v i t thoy th o u g h t t h a t th e a p p lic a tio n f o r review would have serv ed t h e i r purposo because th e y b e lie v e t h a t th e th r e e m onth’s s a la r y which each o f them was awarded was a s l i p o f th e p en . They had expected an award o f th r e o y e a r 's s a la r y . I have no h e s i t a t i o n • a t a l l t h a t t h i s i s a h o p e le ss a fte rth o u g h t. F o r th e re c o rd c l e a r l y ji shows th a t th e a p p lic a tio n f o r review conccm ed d i f f e r e n t m atto rs* th a t th e t r i a l c o u rt had e rre d in re c o rd in g p a r t s o f th e evidence g iv en by t h e a p p lic a n t’ s w itn e s s e s , and,' th a t th o t r i a l c o u rt e rre d in n o t a llo w in g th o a p p lic a n ts c a l l t h e i r w itn esses* th e y wore e n t i t l e d to both avenues* I th in k Mr* M urugaruga i s wrong in t h i s c o n te n tio n . The a p p lic a n ts had to chose one avanuo. 3 in co th e y cTocided to a p p ly f o r review o f th e d e c is io n , th e y could not? whoa t h a t a p p lic a tio n was dism issed* cone round to i n s t i t u t e an appeal a g a in s t th e same judgnento A review p resu p p o ses t h a t th e a p p lic a n t h as fo rg o n e h i s r i g h t o f appeal# So, i f ho d e la y s in p re s e n tin g M s appeal w ith in th e p ro s c iib e d p e iio d ? an a p p lic a tio n fo r-re v ie w cannot be ta k e n a s j u s t i f i ­ c a tio n f o r f a i l i n g to lo d g e th e appeal w ith in th e p re s c rib e d p e rio d . I n th e r e s u l t t- iia a p p lic a tio n f a i l s and i t i s d ism isse d w ith c o s ts » I n persons F or A p p lio ra te - Mr. Mandais F o r Itos^sn&catar C e r tif ie d t r u e copy o f th e O rig in a l Sii'ilO.R DJFUTY ESGrUTEiia