N
The court found that the applicant failed to file a written statement of defence and was absent at critical stages, leading to an ex parte judgment and execution. The Principal Resident Magistrate's order limiting the stay of execution was restored after finding procedural irregularities in granting adjournment...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Applicant: E.K. Moses; Respondent: Zena Hassan
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 25 February 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Ex Parte Judgment, Eviction, Stay of Execution
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
E.K. Moses
Applicant
Zena Hassan
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal out of time
- 2 Whether the applicant was denied an opportunity to be heard in the lower court
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to file a written statement of defence and was absent at critical stages, leading to an ex parte judgment and execution. The Principal Resident Magistrate's order limiting the stay of execution was restored after finding procedural irregularities in granting adjournment without hearing the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Order of 24th February 1984 granting stay of execution restored
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT' OF "TANZANIA AT DAR Ef:f SALA.AI•l MISC. CIVIL Ca USE NO. 48 OF l984 · -, (FROM KIGUTU RM. CHVIL CA~E ·N(l.. 69 OE·,:··1983 )' E,.K. M03SES . -DEF]]Nllb.NT ve·rsus ZBNA .HASS.1:'.N·- ... RESPONDENT RULING_ Before me is an appl~cat~on :.for leav~ the appeal out of time to this court. The applicant was not· repre0ented and therefore did not cite the :relevant l.::..w. I :presvine that the application falls und.er sec_tio::.1. 14 (I) of the Laws of Limitation, .Act No. 10 of 1971. The Cha.mber Application :i,s supported by an affidavits in which applicant has reca.pitutatcd the sequence of events reaching to this applicati6ne In the ·Court of Resident Magistrate at Kisutu one Zena Hassan, the plaintiff, . respondent. now, filed a ouit against E.K. Moses,· the defendant 9 8.p:plicant now. the suit was for, among other orders, eviction from tl,e sµit premises house No.15 along Marumba Gtrest at T£:u1dika. The pla:1-nt .was duly filed on the 16/6/83 The case came for first mentt·o~ on the 14i7/83. The applicant had not been served. · ResC:1rvice·,~order was issued. The case came up for mention on the 11/8/83:~ date okaly set for the mention. There was another reservice order and the . case wa~ set for m~ntion on the 22/9/83. The applicant was . apparently served and appeared in p~rs~- on the 22/9/8'3. The applicant was given an opportunity to file his written statement of Defence which was to be filed· on or before 25/10/83 ready_ for a mention on the 27/10/83. On the 27/10/83 the applicant was absent and the written.statement of defence was not filed. An order for exparte proof by oral evidence issued and the matter was fixed for a hearing on tb.e 15/11/83 on the said 15/11/83 the matter was again adjourned to 16/11/83 the Magistrate on the said 16/11/83 heard the evidon~e of one witness, i.e. the respondent and adjourned for further hearing to th<? .29/ll/8,?, N'o hearing tbokt;p!b~ce on the 29/il/83. 2 On the 1/12/83 deposi tio::1:.:: 01· the second witness were, taken and the matter w,w [:lGt for judgment on the 5/1/1984. Ex parte judgm,::nt was duly deliver-ed on the date. On the 24/2/1984 the respondent aJ)plied for an orJ.er for execution of the decree.. An ordGr was gI·anted. and the applicant was to be evicted from the suit premises. After the whole long period of absence the applicant appear_;d in court on the 25/2/1984 and it seems applied for a stay of the execution order. The leu.rned Pri.ncipal ~lsside:n:'c Iviag-j_strate, (PRM) Mr. Joseph Jviasanche granted tb.e order the stay the eviction order. The learned magistrate thereupon set a date, the I/3/ 1984 to be a hearing cl::.::.t-3 of tho applicant's chamber application to set set aside the ex :i,iarte judgment entered on the 5/1/1984. The Magistrate in no uncerta.:i.ns i terns went on to say and I quote 11 For the avoidance of doubt the stay of e:.ecution is 0 1:;~;~c·,:1.tive to 1/3/84 only, i·.rhen thG Una.mbor application will be h<.::ard.a On the 1/3/8£:- both ps.rtieG e1~.tGr0d a:p;,earance. The applicant on the mc.-:;.·kri,fi,l dst.~ made :_:, su.;J~;estion to have the hearing adj ourn0d t G ,:::a:r.ly ~fun::: on the grounds that he was proceeding on off ie;ial duty c.:,nd expected to be back at the end of _ May. The learned ?..osid.ent Ma,2,:i,strate, Mr.Chilonji. t!'~te/1 e.djournmtint without a reply or word from the respondent The record ,came to t11e notice of the :i?rincipal Resident Magistrate on the 22/3/84 when tile resJonddnt went to complain about the events of the Ist day of i•1arch, 1984 before Chilonji, llesid.ent l'fagiot:r.a.tc. < The Principal Reside:nt Nagistr:;,te remarked that his order of 25th February 1984 granting the stay of execution was limited to the Ist day of March 1984 and aeaondl.y that the respondent was not given an opportu.nity to reply to the ctPPlication for adjournment by th3 al)plican·i;. v/hile paying due respect to the order of Chilonji ~esident 1"18,eistrate, The Principal Resident lfagistrate went on to Jive otber reasons and dismissed the applicant's pr2.yer f S)r a hearing in June. The Order issued on the 24th FGbr.::ar:;, 1984 ,was reGtored.