20020322 TZHC Mbeya2

,: I Dm IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZiJ'l'IA AT MBEYA . : .·•. • • ·-• : ·, '• I MI SC. ; civit :· : APPLICNr.ION NO. . '; .. . -~ ; . ~.; _. ~ 2 OF 2000 ,. VERSUS. 1. COURT - MiiRTIJU, OF 'l'illiZ.dITl\.. ~ ·. ) PEDPLE,3 DEFENCE FORCES ) ·2. • TI'J'J~ANI·A{l?,EX?PLE$ ·DEFEN. Ct;: FORCE$))·... · ..'f.)EC'TY'\NDT.'NTS · ' i. ; : :. , · 0 • a O • a •. :.i.."\ IJ,!;V ..6I . .· ' ... .:,:;}•: . Ni'~TIONi\.I.i SERVIC;I<,.; JKT , ) . -i· 4. ATIDRNEY .. GENERAi ." ." ! ...• ·~ ,. :.: ;.;. ·.· . --·-------- ' .:: . R.U LI N G ...... . -· ~ MACKiiNJ A J., Ex - P.5029 Lt. Alexdnder Remigius . · .. Nk\'./era was discharged :from·. the ,:,, ·.»G:~.: ',. T0nzania P~oples Defen~e Forces<Cthe i.rmy) s~me time in .. 1989 when the milit~y • ,, .!,.: , ·:: .. ::;... . . .. : Court Martinl convicted him of d1Jciplinary offences\~mriect'ed fo ·his . :. .' .. : ···. >, ' ·:. ;,_. .- . .l .. ' ., :~~~L:·. unnuthorizeq. absence from 'duty. Having been aggrieved he has ·dcciclecl 't~ . ; . ·:: ~ ·,[· : ,• ··. .. . . ·.:} challenge the determination of pis contract of employment' with the Army ,by applying for leave to apply for the prerogntive ord~rs ,;of certiorari, .J :?::: EJ§E~ and.prohibition • fie has .impleaded -tre Army' the Nationai ..,Service . •• . ,·I} ••t' ,:-·.:,. and the Attorrie·y''tmeral, ln' that o:rd'er·. Upori',J;:ieing served.;Y.the .M:;torney , . . ,~:1":·.tr~;::··· . ·· :-.:: i·~-:--~-.-··, \. ~ . . . : .:·: ·11.. General,. r1cting for himself and on behalf ,cf. .1tht oth~r twO resp·ond¢.nt.s, has -~- :. '.: · ... ;·,_. .'· '°:_''.~/-A'; .._ ,,,f'· ,. . rai,E>e~l a prelimin~w' objectioW'.'th~t· thb npplic9,t;i,9n its time barred and :that . :'- ~- ' -,:, ' ·. . .. . '' ,' 1 / . ! : ~\- :i'. ;,,·-.,~(:,· • : \,, +., . tµE; ... : •' :.,'. applicant. ~1ii•ii6t :~;~lrve tte ~t~s~oridents vnith ,.the. ,statµtory ninety .clays . .... '· ..J .... . );..- :) ·:~ :~.:., notice of hls 'fa1tent±~~ to' ~U~"-: ·:rarit the:hifore urged to strike o.~t· :this. 1 applicatidn. .. ~ · ·r. Mr. :Mbago, :!-earned Principal 0tatc Attorn~y, ·who :appears fldr the. ). re·spondonts has submitted that the application is time-barred bec6:use ,,t:h~ applic~t had. to ii1stitute these r,rocee(~ings within six months :after the . ·1 : cause of action ci'ccrued •. lie ha~, cited section 18 of the Law Reform (Fatal J~Cci<lent and : I"iisoeilarteous . . . Provisions) . .. Orcl:i.nDnce .: as amended bY, ii.ct No. 55 ~ support· ofl' ·111.i .,irgument·ss . , ::··,r,:L,' .. ,, .·; .. ·. Mr. Mbago' s second objection is based on the Government Proceecli~gs Act. It is learned Principal State .,fttor'ney 1 s contention thc·it section 6 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act; 1966 1 required the applicant to serve- the Government.,a ninety-days notice of his il1"iention to sue it in as much as ' . ail the respondent~ ::n:'l Government institutions •. .. .,, ..... ,. ',, The applicant has ;Uen:i:ed •that the' ;:i.pplicati?.n is )time-barred. He argued that he wn..s discharged 'from. :,the Ii.rmy in July, 1989 af~f:lr .he ~ - -fo~d guilty ..,, ,, o f:.~_ntjiscipline f~r his fail tire -to. report for duty on, till_l~ after the· &xpiry ~ .. ..;.·~:-~;.. -.. . . .. :bf his leave. He ~~ntends that he could not have bJV:ought this application ..., I ·immediately after the dismissal be"cause the Court :Martial which disciplined r--;,"him sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Everi though eleven yeMs had eiapsed between his discharge froin the army and the ·expiry of his prison stint, he had only seven yea.rs within which he had to lodge his application. He told me that he used the seven years to prepare ~imself on matters of law to be able to brine this application to court. On the other hand he stated that he could not serve the Government with the statutory notice because in so doing he could have put his evidcnc~ at risk. • , 'J-:. Those were the arguments" Obv~ously there is no q.oubt that"· the· :applicant . :. ir remained inactive for a minimum of ,seven years; it,;remains to be seen if there ·Was reasonable . .·" . .. .e:xecuse ... . ' . for thos·e lachesG . ~ The answer to this' sci 6'f circumstru1c•:s r·esitlee•;_-;tn. t~r _ law J.h?t o/~ I'1bago h'r"s cited, namely Section 18 of the Law :Reforrii:•{Fat.:D. . , ' ' ./,ccidents' ,.. . .' and Miscellaneous ... ·• .. ·: .r. Provisions) Ordinance ::~: . as amended, and section 62 of th~ National Defence ,.ct, 1966. I will reproduce the relevant parts of those provisions,f9r ease of reference~ Bec;inning with section 1.8 of the L~w Reform (Fatal Accidents Grtd liiiscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, as amended, it is provided that:- 0 (1) The Chief Justice may make rules of court prescri~ bing the ,.procedure and the fees paya°Qle or documents filed '.1. •or issuedfin cases where an order of fuandamµs, prohibition or certiorari is soughta (2) _Subject to the provisions of subsection. (3), rules ·,' ,, . ;--, .. : 'f '~ :.·-1 ... 3 .... made under subse.ction ULtd :thls soction may prescribe that applications ,,,.',, . .• :._r_ for an order of milndamus, prohibition . or certior.nri shal;:l.., in specified proceedings, be __ made within : .:·!::~;-. ·, ., ... ' ·. . .. . :; : .. _.. ·. six months:or ...such_:;,h_orter period as-may be prescribed ' I . . . .. . I ·. .. '' . ~ . ' after the "'ti.ct· or orriissio:h to which the applicntion for leave relates. .• . (3) In the case 0£ an. applico.tion for certiorari to ! ~ i, ·' :,;, .:: ;:-2.~ : : ' . :. :,; '/:·; . . remove any judgment, ord(:):+,",' ,· conviction: or.,;otho:r::proceecling .. . . . ' for the purpose ·df its peipg quashed,. lea-ye .shall not b~ ')' ·, J ... 1·::1_ granted unJ.ip1:3s the appl,i9ation . ,, 1·'. for leo.ve is made not. later· ·c ·:·1·,· ,·•· than six mont~ after the ct0~e of the pio:cc~ding o~· such .. ·. may ·be p;r-escr~bed unJer :fuly 1i.ct, and where shorter perioc}, i,,.S • • •• '•' ,: ' '~ .:'.•. • :....•,:_•: • • •H ; •. 1 ••' • ' •, ,:, •. 1 ,: •••' the pro"~a.egi~CJ:~. s11st~t to. appeal,· an·4· a: time._ lirilf!,ed by law for the bringing of\ the appeal 1 · thi/ Court er judge C'•.ic.·1ni.§ a,~jo\i.,;;:n::the·applicat:i,~l].-for lea,v~•'ll4til the appeal is . ,, •. ,,1:; -. ' . -., ' : .. ·ct~termii;ied or the. time . for appeal has expired.• 11 . ·::_:·_·, · .:By .tllC fore5oing provision,s the applicant was required to have f:fled his appli.<::ation within 9i:x:_ months from the. time he was convictecl ·of 1ndisci- :. pline. 'lJ;me· for serving his sentence of imprisonment if, as -provided under . - . . . ' ' . ': ' . ' ~ .. _ ~.. . :·· · · subsec~ion (13) . of section ~! 18, he had. loclg')cl th_e application . for . 1~01,v,e,as . . · well as an appeal' . ' ai_;q1.inst ., ' . ·!. ;, sentence and conviction. Because he did not appeal· · ·no tirrle ;may be discount~d •. · Ey.en. if _time for his prison term is to be ~- .. ·•:. ;·t.',c '. •.·.: ;··_ :· _. . - ., . • ., . ... . ,. . :· : . . .. discount~rl, the ,0F,plic~ant '.~. flaim that he spent _seven years to prepare himsf,ilf . .J.t:.:.1_Tt.-··:_:_..i-· -i \ .. 1 ·., ,.- :.r·. . . . .. is a most unreason~Ble ~a,y ~y:f.1 i.'.i.c·coU11:M.ng for his time., ,,\ .. ··: '· . ·:·\:On its part sectio;n 62 of the Nnti'cjnal Defence ,:.ct 1 No.· 24 of 1966/ provicles that:- \.i\''L ·L,; <, 11 62. No suit or other civil proceeding.sh!::jJ.l lie against. ··h: any person for a,.11 action done in pursuance or execu~ion or ., .,i.: intended. execution of this Act or 1Jny Defence ForcJs Regula- tions • • • unless it }9 corf1tnericed., \'lithin six months 1 next after the act, ne1;lect o·r ck:f2,ult cornplD.ined of •••"• It se~ms to me 1 al.'~hough the applicont did not say so in so many words t that he was punished uncer Regulation·Co26 of the Code of Service Discipline ..... by the Disciplinary,Court Martial which is vested with such jurisdiction in terms of Regul::ttion c. 97 of those Regulations. It follows that according I - "" r•~~H rm fi2 of the National Defence Act, 1966, the 4 applicant had to challenge his punishment' within six months next after the punishment p.e now seeks to be r,eviewed·. Here again tpe applicant is . '' [,,. clearly guilty of irtdiligertc~:~ There:ts no doubt,th~t tife'st;tutory notice is mctndatory; for section 6 (2) of the Government Proceedi~gs Ac~, 1967, as amenc:1.ed by the Govefnment Proceedings Ullnendmcn t) ;let, No• JO o.f 1994 provides thus: ii(2) N'o su.it against the Government shall be instituted., ;· 3lld heard mµess the,claimant previously sub□its: to the ' 'J t.. .·. , . Government .Minister, Dep.1:U'tment or officer concerned a notice of not less·than ninety· do.ys of his intention to•sue. the Government 1 specifzy-ing .the basis of his. claim ;'1g2in:st the Government 1 and h&. ·shall s~nd a ,popy to the ii.ttorney-GeneraJ.:11,~ The applica.nt did not,give the· statutory :µotice to the Governmont because he believed that in so doing 11e would have prejudiced his evidence·. · It.• is my cons:U:i'erBd. opinion th,:1t ,the; fenr was wholly unfounded becauso the law did not:.require him to furnish the Government with. any ev:ideh'ce in proof of the ;> claim; it isi:·proof of a: claim thi!J.t, requires evidence., . Jul that he .was required to·do was·to furhish the Government.with particulars of his claim, the same way anyone· must .do in a<formal demand before he insti t.utes a suit against any other per.son.·; Since• the not:i.ce is manda-tory, omii3sion to give it '·tc:i'the Government from· whatevet' execuse ,·. visits a; fo.taJ.. irreghl:ari ty :,to C the proceedings. ':(:hut i-1S.,'what h&s'. happehed hei'e.1: '·1 :•· have established their objectionso Consequently the application: :for loave is dismissed:. There ..wilcl! be .no ord€r, n.s to· costs. Delivered.· ; :S~d• J,o M~. MJtCK,'i.Nlf1. JUOOE 22/3/2002 ., \,' I I I, 1' -''1 - 5 - i'tpplicant: In Person Certified true copy of the original Ruling. DIS'.i.1.RICT REDLSTRAR MBL'YA