19890708 TZHC Dar es Salaam

THE uiJITED REPUDLIC OF T.!-1.NZii.Hil1. IH THE illGH COURT OF TliNZANIA J.,T :Ulill. ES 81.LALM CI7JIL CJ.GE NO• 1 46/09 CORIGRJi.IN (UK) LI1'.Zi:TED • • • • • • • • PLAINTIFF vorous THE KOREA Hl-i.!1{11.l'JG TicADIHG COP.?ORJ;.TION ... i:>EFEHDi-.HT n. U L I N G .BAHA.TI • J • This is an application for leave to appeal to t~o Court of Appeal o-f: Ta.neania against this court's rulinc dclivc.rad on Lt/7/8,E). It is broucht under section 5 (1) (c) of' the Ap:)ollato Ju~isdiction Act 1979. Section 5 (1) (c) reads: In Civil proce0din 5 s, except whore any other written. law f'or the tii:10 being in force provido.s otherwise, an ~ppeal shall lie to the Court of'. 1-i.ppoal - with lenve of' the Hieh Court or of tho Court of' Appeal againot every other docreo, order, judgr~ont, decision or f'incling of·tha High Cour.t. In his subr.1isi:don, Nr. Isr.mil, learned Counool for the applicant, '.stated that the order for which leave was i::leinc sou::sht to appeal ngninot . was an in.torlocutory,orcler encl that ~ such leave could be i3'ivon :fori:m.1.ly or informally as rulo. h,,J of the Court of Appool Rules provides. He also stated that a point of' law w2G involved ca shmm in the chanbcr sur,11:-ions c.nd that no har1:1 would be ca.used to the interest of' the renpondont::; in granting such leave. He rof'orr.ed the court to the I:itsh Court Civil case no. 4 of 1985 Dhngwcnji Sachcdcv_Y._!, Gh...~rclabcn Kotak (unroport0c1). But, with due respect to :rvr.ar. Is.:1ail, the above cited caDo does not purport to be authority f'or tho proposition thnt leave to apponl against _an interlocutory order may be granted, because in that case tho le2,n1.ccl Juclec "considerec the tothlity of' 2.11 the i:10terial relevant to this 2.pplication 11 as tho top of page :five of' the typed ruling shown• In reply Cnptain Kanej2 learned counsel for the ~CS?ondont subDittod that tho oriaincl ap~licction by the applicant for an order to set aside the injunction order had boon fixed hearing on 20/7/09 011. its 1:1crits. --l .. k ...... .;:,..., ,.,, ,. - 2 An order to tllnt off'cct wno e;ivcn o.nd i t still stcnc:s as i t has not been ordered to stay it.. Concerning Rul0 43 of" tho Tan~ania Court of Ap:_,cnl Rules, Captain 1Car.1cja oub□i tt;o.c:1 that i t tnlks of' the practice of tho. High Court. He then! rcforroc.1 tho Court to two cases which sot out wl-.mt is tho pvtictic.c· of' tho Hi 0L> h Court.• ntl.r.101y _ Rene _ _::Jol v •. Official Rocoivor of' U,4,.:;,_pd2. ,__.;;;;.._,.;...;;..;.,_,;.;;;.;;..,;_:;.;;;.=;.......------a_..,.;...;,.._.__,,___ - 21 E.A.C •.A. 116 nncl Q.urdial Sinf;h uhillon v. Sho.t:t,Ifaur o.nc1_ . ' r others (1960) E.A.795. Ho wont on to state tl?,fl.t no f'in~l decision disposine of tho application to set· aside the injunction order had boon r.mdc. ac concluded that what tho npplica.nt was doing was to gar.1bl0 in the process of the court in that i:f 0 ho lost in the Court of Ap:xlal ho would coao back to tho Eich C.ourt for tho henrin:3' as ordered on 4/7 /09 • In reply, Mr. Isi:mil coutonded thc,t if leave were granted there would be no interference with tho hearing order for 20/7/89._ He wont on :further to sub□it the.t the apylication was f'or leave to cppcal .::cc.inst the order of' 4/7 /09 •. If' thnt is not done within two weeks, the npplicnnt will not he ab~e to apply or appeal aeainst that rulinc· of' 4/7/09, ho s2id. In yet another reply Ca::)tain ICameja argued thnt there could not be D.ny question o:f bein5 out of' tir:1e to a1)::.:ical ac;2i:i.1ct tho rulinG of' 4/7 /89 bccc.u:::;o once the whole ap::_)lication for c.n order to set 2.sic1o the injunction is deter□ined, tho npplic.::-,nt will be nblc to nppeal pgainat the whole order • . That is tho applicant woulC: be nblo to appeal against tho ruling of tho ,-1hole applicc tion including ti1.2 t one deli vored on 4/7 /09. Mr. Isr.iail insisted tl::.at tho ruling o:f 4/7 /89 could. not. be appealed against after two weeks bocauoc i t is a GC:;_)Urnte rul_inG :fror.1 the one which would be given after he2ring tho whole application. I r.iust say that this epplication has raised quite interoD- tinG' argur.ients. Dut I a1tl clenr in my □ind thnt e..n interlocu- tory order can..viot be appealed ne;o.inst. It is only where you hnvo a:n order which finally dotcrr.1ineQ what is in nn npplication th.at an np:.,,enl r:my lie. Tho cc.Go of Gurdial Sinr;h Dhillol'L.Y!_ Shnr.1 I{aur ci tecl suprc is, in r::1y viow, relevant hero. I dcre. say that it is on all fours witl1 this application, Thnt 1-rns a Court of' Appcnl decision which binds this court. On pnco 79'J letter G 0£ the report i t is stnted: 11 an order r:1nc:.0 upon tho henrines of the oriGina fine sumnon.s 11 r:mst, in tho coutcxt ofQ;fL11, moan tb.e orde:c ~-rhich is the adjudicntion upon the ori:::;innt- ine sum□ ono, that is, the "finol" order which dispose □ ~innlly of the rie;hts of tho parties. To hole: othc:.-·wiDo r::ight ·1oad to a r.ml tiplicity - 3 - of nppo£,lo upon incidontnl orders. r.iadc in the courso of' the hoarinc, when such .□otters cnn more conveniently be considered in nn ap~)enl fro,-;, the f'ina.1 decision. There can never bo any doubt that the law require~ thnt who.tis appealed nc;ninst must be an orc!cr::1·1hich is tho final ardor which disposes finnlly of tho ri3"ht::; of tho parties in nn npplication. In our case, "cit the request of' tho npplico.nt, only the lee-al nspoct wns nr@lecl. Tho application has not yet been disposed of fin2.lly because i t is f'or continued ho2,ring on 20/7/89, The rulinc:; civen on 4/7/09 is not a f'innl order in respect of the applicnnt'::; r-.:-.o)plicn tis>n. fl final. rulinc uill be given after the i:1nttor ha.n boon ·honrd on 20/7/89. Furthor;·_:or0~ I do not, ,·Tith respect, share M:r. Ismnil 1 s view thc:-.t tho. ruling of 4/7 /09 co.nnot be nppeoloc1 a5ninst if' two weolrn elc.pso without scekine on npplicntion f'or leave to appenl. This is because the rulinc of 4/7/09 is nn interlocutory order to be incorporated in the fin2l order when tho application h2s. boon heard~ For tho tine beinG it is pre □nturc to appeal ncainst the ruling of 4/7/09. For tho above rcnsono, lenvc to nppc~l to the Court of i1ppcol is refused. Costs of' this applico.tion to be borne- by tho c1.pplice,nt. A. Dl1Hf1TI _EQ.C]l__ G/7/1989 Court_: Ruline deli vercd in pres enco of ndvoco tcG.•. J:i.,. iJAHATI Order: By consent written st~tei:1ent of defence by 1 D/8/39 Mention on 19/J/89 • A• Bii.l-Ii. TI ~-- Ju~GE •••ooo•/4 - 4 - This is to certify th'""t thio i::, tlH~ c~rtiJU.iid true copy of the !;;-.: 1' Originalo