NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 14

L"f 1:·::L.:; LIT C£:S. J0UiTI1 OF T.,lJJZA,JIA ..tl' :J~~. ~ Slu.J~JiM ~CEIT.J,,;li'WUS CIVIL .aPPLIC.11.TIOff irn 0 15 OF 19q4 lilDI 1,fLJITIJ.N"ZI & ..::.aOTll.illR •, •• ••••• ••••••• A.PPLICil.clT/APPELL.WTS VJihtiJ'UJ C.LUB 111.:Ull" ..:;.GBR T. Co C. ,JPORI'3 & SOCI.iUJ JLU}1 • o • • • • o • • • • ., • o o. o • o • • • •· • Rl{SPO.£fil~ . ------------------------- RU L I l{ Gs MACKLU'U A, J • s Tbis is an application for leave. to appeal out of t i ~ J the judgment and decc~ee of t;:e lower court. That jud.@llent was delivered ~ 25th Ifay 1993 •ahcl. the a.ppl~ i:-rnre info11110d of their right of • appeal. They do ,l'l,Qj_p.,=:;putc tl:::£:.t rnc:.tter.. Instead of appealing t::1ey lcdg~ an application fo}~ r··.·:·,no\~ i:.1 ..:hich t::.'.cJ rniscd matters which wore canplete.ly " . e:rtenuous to their rie;Lt of n.ppoal. It is not my intention to cliscuss · the merits of t:1n.t a·.JHc.:rLi\..n. Suffice it to srsy that it was dismissed, • in aruling vhi.ch ir, i1ot cl;:,.tod. It was a:?tor tosjng the application for review that tho appJ.::-.omts filed this ap:plice,tion on 31st January, 1994- Tho applicants sock ·to justify tho delay by dcponing in :paragraph 1 of their joint affide:vi t they thought thc::.t tho application for review • would have served their purposo boce.i.l.so they bolicvo that tho throe ' , . . month's sala:cy- l,hic.½. each o.f thorn was awarded we.a a slip of tho :pen. They had .~cctod an award of throe y<;iar's salaryo I. ~ave no hesitation / a.t all th~t this is a hopolos; afterthought. For tho record clearly ·shows that tho application for . review concc:z:nod different me,ttorsi . that tho trial cou:::-t ho.d erred in recording parts of ·tho evidence; Given by the applicant I s wi tnossos 7 o.nd,' tb.2.t tho trial court erred in not allolring tho applicc.nts ccll t:!icir "1"r.it11ooi:::oso ap:plice.nts is o:Z ·t,:,o ~rir:r~r tb.e,t t;~o t1,.:pplic2Jrts ·woro cnti tlcd to c\pply for a review 8-llcl woe ti.iD effort failed t~:lo;/ could proccr,.m t!::o 2.ppoal booause they wore anti tlccl ·co both cvonuoso I thi:1.k Mro Nuruga1-u.gs is wrong in tl-1is cont011tio1:., Tho e,pplicwts had to chose ono avenue. 3incc' they docidod to apply for rovicw of tho docioion, t:i.oy could not? -:rl:.cn that a:p:plic2..tion was llis.:ii:3sod, cone rou.ncl. to insJituto an appc2..l e,c;2inst the se..1i10 judgmento ii review p:rosupposcs that tho applicant has fori:;ono his right of appoalo So, if ho delays i.i1 presenting his appeal within the proscri bod period, &'1 application for ·roviow cannot bo taken a,s justifi- cation for feiling t;_1 1.odgo tho appeal wi tl'i.i.Yl tho prescribed period.• In tho rooul t t:~iG 2,pplic2,tion :i:'ails a11c1. it is diooissocl with costn., Certified tr~,o copy of tto Original.