19960515 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1

IN THF.; COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ~T DAR ES SALAA~ (CORAM: ~ZAVAS, J:..Ari tf..\LILA 1 J.A., Anq ~V~.Y,VA 1 J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1996 BE.'NEEN · EUROCCNSVLT (AFRICA) B.V. • • • AND : . ' : 1,,.,. :_I FRENCH & HASTINGS. • • • • • • • RESPONPENT (Appeal ftom the }u~gement and ctecrea of the .High Court 6£ Tan~ania at oar es Salaam) (l<¥~ndo,r J •) dated the 18th o~y of February, 1.~4 1n CiVJl ,%!l?8..Ql N2,t.27 of. 199~ ------- R-lJLING I . I J ,, When th1.s ~eol came up for hearing 011 '.10,/5/~~ Mr. Majithia learned Ct>Unsal f'?r the r~ispondent raised a prelimi11~ry obj pct.ion arguing that the record of appeal by the appeit~ht atd not comply with the ~andato~y p~ovisions .of,., rule 89 of th~ cour~ of A~peal Rules in th1t most ef the d~uments prOduced in the lower Courts ' . were n(lt !l"lelu~e~ 1ft the record c,f appeal•- The learned Counsel urg4il.d th•· f!oul't to stl!'ike. out the api,eat aa incol'ilpetent. In $\Jpport of l\if eigument the Court was r"ferred to the det:i.sion of this Cc,urt in Civil Application No. 22/98 - 'l'bNZANIA ON;rF~ I 1 AND CLOTHING CORPOR.a.TIOrt_y. ~~-~ES t-PSES. We have read the Ruling in that case wh1eti wl)s an at)pl:1.cal:.1.on before a single judge of this Court (Ramadh~hi, J.A.). The application wa\s dismisser! un,1~r rule 3(2) (c) of th<l Court: of Appeal ~ules "for the sake of maintaining the hondl,l.t" of thi.s ..... /2 • 2 - i.Jnlik~ the .. , present 1ppl1cation the ruling in App1ic•~t1on No. 22/90 waa based I. \ on the feliure Of the advocates to appear in Court oh the days c,/ ~he case. That being t~ -r,odti,Ql') .fail fixed tor heaz:ihg WG t. ~ ~ HJ.~~ :.t ttu,t ded:s.ton on the t.ct, of the '. I applic::.tidn before us, Cornit19 tC> Mr. Mhahgo' s i:ep ly to Mr. Maj ithia • si submission ~•t the r ~ d . bf e~peal offendiJ against rule B~ of the Court of Appeal iill~." ·<he- l~rnaad ~~l f4r the f1'1. .~tl~~llMlt arguQd that f all.\Jre to 1ncl1.lde in thEl recotd f' iippee;l ~urne11ts produced ifl the 1Qwer CO\.lrts as exhil>i ts did riot ' ctdil fqr ' In ,uppert.,\ of his ,rgument tt,3 Court was referred to the decision of this t,ui-t. ir,i Civil f:.ppe§l No. J/86 t!btllSI Aft); t:11:l<lliQO W~ ll~ OTHERS . y TANZJruIA . ... .. ,.. - iAMB!A .. • :·, '•: AVTf!9RIT~. With ,rHsp~et ttr thQ lGerned C ~ ~ ~ 'did not de~i with non-compliance of the rules. J'.t ~e~ ~~"ng .•.' p'agei 1n the record of ; epped aa shown t)n \. page two .~t the judgc,n~nt where the Court observdd inter riliai it13ei6H jeing to tha subs tanc=e of tkla , ~ppeet we ~ish. to ~emark that we were ••: • ·, . . I 'I :ll'\c'JtY"nienced by the r~c:otd fu.tni~hijd I . ~~ us ............ , aetween pages 59 ~i')d 6~ '.e,f the ~yped record l! wh91e jag~ ef the 0111,gil"lol rec9i-d .. is left c,ut::. ... ..... ,.. Then a,t P'-98 6~ nearly ten ~ages of the orlginel record are omi ttadl"l'"'""III'•" The decisior1 tn the case (Civil J\ppoal No. t/1086) does riot therefore support Mr. Mhangc' s submis~ion that the rec::brcl of appual by the appellant d•ea not .offend against the ptovis:19n$ of rule 89 of I 3 - the Court of Appeal Rules. However: on 'r:F:}ii-i~ f'-!¥lh~f pto~c\ei! by the Court, Mr. Mhango quite properly con<tad~~ thijt th~ record of eppeal as filed does not comply with the mapdatory p~ovision• of Rule 89 in that import~n.t documents in the form of exhibit• ~uc~d llt. the trial were not included.· 1n the cir~u1uhncc•• he asked fer the indulgence of tM Court to l!lliow him to ri 1~ • Mr. ,Majithle on behal.f of the respon,l ?nt, oppoatd th1a application stating that U' the CO\U:"t .ollow~d the appellant tlt> file tM supplemen-t&ry record, it would !;'lmount ~~ t>l.l~ th,1.111 to t1ll _in gaps cr~,ited by their own ne~1ig~tid~ ~lict in&et:4,on th11 •itua~ion on rece~pt of the notice o{ i-d:L1i~t1i!tttf <fu.;.,cH:i~• dQCided to come to Court and challenge thia objection. In ,\ H.t-. Majithia' • view, .the appellant's prayer for the iMUlgern;e ot the Court is not made in good faith, he therefore -..1rgert th,~ Court to reject the appellant• s application for en adjournment to efteble them fila the supplementary record. We are in c~m~lete agreement with Mr. Maj1thia•• :ruemis,lo~, eJ\d \heretere we wculd ordir,erlly hav~ allow,~d his pr~l1mina.r:y objcct!.en, but !n vil.gw of the c:ompl.exi ty t,f t~ legal i~•ue s \th1eh f~ed th6i! lowe~ Courts· and which tn the i~t\erat;t of the wi~er public requir~ that they be resolved ~y ~I~- c•urt, it is ou~ eonside~d view that the interests of justice wo~ld be better se.rved if tha appeel h allO\!Jed to l)roceed •. l'.n the event the prelimi:·.i:ry objeetH>n is dismiss~d. The appullont' a file the JUpplerner~"J.t'Y rc,cord is i,.l so gri'.lntej which should b~. do1u1 • ,rl - 4 ... a, soon es pt,ssible to enable the hearing of t~U l!!ppea\ t.o N.S. MNZAV/di ,JJJ~n~. or APE~4 ' . . ':: L.M. MP'ALILA .JUSTICE ~F lJ,~1,1.tPJ,i_ D~ z. UJBUVA JUSTICE OF APPl~At, _ _ _ _ ...,,_ . ...._.\L