19970827 TZHC Dar es Salaam

"l. -,.i..- i, ,IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 1997 IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION ACT 1971 BETWEEN DEBAN T~ADiijG S.A. APPLICANT AND TANZANIA COTTON MARKETING BOARD RESPONDENT .,. R U L I NG KALEGEYA, J. This 1s an ex~arte application in which Mr. Kalunga learned Advocate for the Applicant, Deban Trading S.A, prays for . ., extention of a period of limitation for instituting an l • • ,, . "' application\Petition to file cin award: t Revealed in· the application together. with bhe· support,ing .. . I' ~ ••• ,- • affidavit and annexures are the following. The Applicant: ·Deban . . · Trading S.A, and Tanzania Cotton M~rketirig Board, were engaged in ·cotton business as buyers and sellers respectivelly. At one stage the sellers failed to honour their obligation in that they failed to deliver the supplies required. In th~ conduct of their business the "seller,s 11 and "Buyers" had agreed and appointed "The l Liverpool Cotton Association: Ltd" -of England as an Arbitrator in " ' . case of disaareement. The Arbitr~tors received ~nd dealt with the • - i,, ·"' dispute which arose due to non-delivery oi the agreed cotton ·supplies and made an award in favour of the Buyers, "Deban ·' ·Trading S.A". The Tanzania Cotton Authority Board (TCMB) dissatisfied with thii award appealed to the Liverpool Cotton 1· •· ' ... Association Board of Directors, styled as "The Technical Appeals Committee". Again TCMB lost and the said Technical Appeal Committee made an award in favour of the Buyers. This was on 12\9\96. The present Application is intended to secure leave for extension of time within which to file the said Arbitration award before the High Court of Tanzania as the six months prescribed under The Law of Limitation, First Schedule, part III... item 18, has since elapsed. In his affidavit Mr. Kalunga, learned Advocate, stated that the delay was caused by attempts to effect execution of the award else where; that though ignorance of the law is no defence the applicants, distant as they are from here, were not aware of the ,j statutory limitations in this country, and that if the application is refused the Respondent stand to gain unfairly from· an agreement they willingly entered into. From the documents attached to the affidavit cemented by the affidavit itself I am satisfied that indeed there is an award by the Technical Appeal Committee, which award emanated from Arbitration proceedings agreed and consented to by the parties in their cotton business dealings. It is clear also that the said award having been made on 12\9\96 the same is time barred under the Law of limitation Act (Act 10\71). Under item 18 of the 1st schedule of part III of the said Act 10\71 "filing of an award made in any matter referred to arbitration without the intervention of a court" has to be made within 6 months of such an award. 2 . Under s. 14 of the Limitation Act (Act 10\71), notwithstanding the above prescribed period of limitation, "the court may for any reasonable or sufficient cause extend the period of limitation for the institution of ........ an application, .... and an ap~lication for such extension may be made either before or after: the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or application". I have carefully consiqered the contents of the affidavit and attached annexures in relation to the relevant chamber summons, and also oral submissions by Mr. Kalunga advocate before this Court, and have reacheq a conclusion that the application deserves the indulgence of lhis court in the issue of an extension of time within which to file an award. I do realise that it is almost a year since the award was made but one of the reasons advanced - that the applicants were trying to exhaust other avenues for possible execution is one of those reasons envisaged under s. 14 of Act 10\71. Of course the other grounds like the assertion of distance betwen where the applicants carry out their business and this court has no basis at all in todays world of modern technology where messages\informations, let alone machinery, are sent for millions of miles or kilometres between t two points within seconds. The same is the case also with the other claim of ignorance about our statutory limitations on the .1 matter for as rightly submitted by Mr. KalungaJ learned Counsel, (though he immediately retracted from that sound principle of law) ignorance of the law is np defence and no one would buy a 3 ...... suggestion that the applicants, 'if they wished, would have failed to make themselves aware of our laws pertaining to the issue a day after (if not on the same day} the award was made. All in all however, as I have already indicated, the single reason referred to above is reasonable or sufficient to explain why the delay was caused and considering this, the prayer for extension of time is hereby granted. The award to be filed within three days of delivery of this ruling . • AT DAR ES SALAAM ( L. B'. Kalegeya) 26TH AUGUST, 1997 JUDGE Delivered in the presence of Mr. Kalunga, Advocate, today the 27th August, 1997. AT DAR ES SALAAM (L. B. Kalegeya) ·1 27TH AUGUST, 1997 JUDGE . "' .,• ~~, ' ~A• :;-e- .