19830127 TZHC Arusha

.. I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA •' AT ARUSHA MATRIMONIAL CIVIL APPEAL.N'Oo · 25 OF 1980 •. .. I . EE._i.9~al Mo~ht oistri~t qourt Matro Civ. Co No.l/79 DAUS Er JOSEPH"~ o o o o o,o o o 1 . -.-. ;c; 0 ·~ -~ o" o o,, APPELLANT versus TIKISANDE-D}\USEN oooooaoooq,ooo RESPONDENT •. i .,

JUDGMENT The a~pellarit·: was· the· respondent in a peti tioh for judic:\al , . ,,,;. separation~ · All ~he pleadings in the case were filed ·-before ·: :1e hearing ~a.te was f,ix~d. "' on the hearing date~ the peti tione= ::I:· :•infori:neg. the qotirt that- the appellant/r~spondent in the peti. .,Jn ;.;;··had .tefused; to ac~ept s __e~vic.e ,"of·: the no~ic:e of hearing. She :-·1s0 prociuc~d- J:~e- nofit:~ ~~ic~. was l~nd~r~ed t;o: the same effect. C' the basi~ ~~..... _.the, c· . peilit:1~~~~-•s . .._. ~.. stat'em~-~t,.the .. court ordered , that t!°:; . ......·.. :-. . . . . ' . .•. . ' . ~ cas'e procee_d :ex..;;parte ~!,l.d .it was so· hea.rd.· The appellant filc.J an appfi~~ti:6n°' to; set ·aside. thG ex-parte. judg~ent 'immediately he ,· ',. ~~ i •••• : • : • • • • •• ...I~: • . . . l b~·eame ~w~~ of ,it ptit .11.i~ . application was d:Uimissed, hence -~·.:·'.s ••• •• ..... • 'y, •• _, •,, f. . . \. ·, The record shows. that the .tri·a1 co~rt ordered that the n~ '.:ice ·, f;. ·";:;_·· . .-_. .-, ·., .; . : ·,,1. :; ' .r·?.'' of·· hearing should b_9. s·e'l:--"v!=d on .the· re~pondent/appel'fant by the .. petition'ere f•. ~.. '- •-. •. ••.\.'('i 0 , s'ub~ -rn6de·: 6/-~e~;ice-·.. is ~1i1o~ed by, Orde'.x? 5 Rqle 3:t •••..,..~ .:.·. '/ • : ti ' .}•· :'. • • ,,_._, . ~-~ t~e: =civil ·pr:ocedurei b~~e~ . .' l .-::"~· •,. , ·-., ·The; proced·u_~e ·for. stini~oning.,pa~:ties: and

_wi:tnesses. to a c2::e S .:•- · -i~r.. :_ ·r b.ea.iiii:ig-'ls . . :. . 'p~o~ided ·1n 'ord·~; 16 ·of··'th~-c~cte.··: ·Rule 8 of ·-, .. ' , . . . . . .- . -. Order J_6:cprovides: ·.·, ,?:·:·' . :,:, :.; ~ ... . ,_.: :: •~;-· 1'Eve~y s~mmons· -~·nder .. this.I order shall • . - ; l •.--. be served as nearly_ as:,ma':f..b~ in. the. . .\ t . ' ~ ~ :· ..: ~ .. . ~ . - manner, .as a summons to a d~fendant and. ...... ·_ .- ; . .. ~-. . . ,, . . . \. } . ·"'the t:,':\le_~-- in,.,o'fd~f v_ as to· pro~f of i·. •· , '~._ rJ~3-.,.... . . . servic~ sqallj apply in the· case of ..all .-.. : ·:·· ,: ... r..:,,,~ . . . . summonses,,_served under this~ ruleo II .. "l. . . ( ;>. . . • •. . . Orqer V Rule 31 __prqyides: ,. ·.. · -··· .,,;:J· "Service by..- the p'iairi~if.f or his age~t.:may be • • • 1 ·-.t··rF:)c., ..- - . . • l.. -'deemed .to have ·been· duly served if an affidavit is filed by the person who effected the service ,~./2· (a) that he.,,00000 2 . . { a) that he. personally served ~htt summons on . • .l ... . .:.~ , the defendant; and·. ; ,. _·:(.J:,).: that the ·cte'fendant wa$· personally known to him o.twas identified tohim by a·person , I . • named in the affidavit; and_ (c) exhibiting the summons or copy thereof ' ' endorsed by the defendant with an acknowledgement of s·ervice or giving reasons why no such endorsement could be obtained." It is further-provided in order·l6 Rule

10 (1) that: "Where a person to whom: a summons· has been issued either to attend to give evidence or t6~#roduce a document fails to attend or to produc~ the document in compliance with such;:. summons, the . court shall; if the cetificate oif;"the serving .( •' .'. . .,~;! .'.';',:-r/""- officer has not been verified by' ~ffidavit, and ,J· . . . '.e<::Jnay,'·if it has been ·so verified, examine the ;; · · ,$erving officer on· oath; or cause him to be { ' -.r examined by anb'ther·cotirt, touching the service or non- . ,_J Under Ord~r V Rule 31 1 therefore, no service by a plaintiff is d:3emed to be duly· effected unless an affidavit is.filed:by the . •. . ·.: 1.:r:;:.:·~, .~.i~~ :_ : , :~~-- · ·~, ·: person who effected the·service. Similary, Under Order 16 RulelO (1) ' · 00 if a person ~o served faiis to appear it is mandat.ory for the ' .l \7 "'' •, court to cause the serving officer to be examined on oath touching on the service or non-service of the summons if the certificate of :·.r . service has not been verified by affidavit. -, .. The record of the trial court· shows . th.at the notice of hearing tendered by the petitioner and endorsed to the 3:'!ffect that tlle -., . defendant/appellant. had refused- to_ accept service w·as not accompanied by an affidavit of the messenger alleged by the petitioner to have served it on the defendant as required by Order o ~ule 31,nor is

then:: anything in the record to show that such personwas examined on oath on the service or non-service of the summons.. That being the case, it could not be said that ·the respondent/appellant; was served with the notice of hearingo ~/3 Th~ tiiai court •• ooo•••• 3 - The trial court thus erred in dismissing the applicant's application to set asid_e the ex-parte judgment. This appeal 1s accordingly a_llowed. The ex-parte judgment is set aside and it is ordered that the case shou~d proceed in the ~ri_al court according to law. Under section 90 (1) ·o'f the Marriage. Ac:t there shall be no order for I costs.

JUDGE 27/1/83 Parties to be notified~ RBM/MJK. . --