20050815 TZCA Dar es Salaam

IN THECOURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATDAR ES SALMji Lf.QIPJvii LjjUy.A.114RO) And MUNUO,Lj\ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2000 GAPOIL (TANZANIA) LIMITED ... ..................................... APPELLANT . VERSUS THETANZANIAREVEUE AUTHORITY . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PREVENTION ............ RESPONDENTS OF CORRUPTION BUREMJ . THE ATTORNEY GENERAL / (Aoeai from the Decision and.Orcter of the Hicjh Court of Tanzania at Dar es Saiam) (ManentoL J.) dated the 16 day of Nombe, 1999 in Misc. Civi' Cause_No.36 of i9O RULING OFTHE CORT MUNUOJ ..A. 1 he acneaot, CAPOIL (TANZANIA) Ltd. i..tituted the presel L )C to cha Henne the RuHci passed on 1 6 NovenTher, 1999 fl :Lc OUS CvU Cause No. 36 of 1999 In Hiqh Court of [n ana at Dor-es-Salaarn, t)efore Manef to, 1.., :15 he JIefl \vas. The adno cerhorari sought to quash a tax assessment by the ii st. msounoent. the 7. anzana Revenue Authortv, and to prohbft the ts and the second respondents from demandng overdue/unpac taxes totahng the sum of Tsh 189,833,220/32, the appeant aUegedl' owed the first respondent. The learned trial Judge upheld a priminary objectioto the effect that there are alternative remedi: to resolve the tax mafter before resorting to the Pt erogative actio o f certiorari and prohibitton Dssattsfied with the Ruling of the Hih Court, theappellai.t:.lodged the present appeaL The l St respondent filed a Notice of preltrn'nor )' objection uncer Rule 100 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 contendñg that the Ruling appealed against does not reflect the couect titlE of the appellant The gtst of the peliminary object on is that at pa ss 27 dfld 2ic of the record of, dppeal, the appeflnt was erroneo y titled "appeHant" instead of"appliaut". However, counsel for thi, I kperJ't con:eded that the said mIsiescrIDIton of theappi ant only cippears on the titles of the Ruling and Dia'n Order of the 'içjh ourt The tiXi of the Ruling and Drawn Oidet correctly desc oeo ho pai KS as apltcant and tP3pondents On the htiiiiq o the es, couocel for the first t spondent asserted that if the u oi d itrn the' erroneous descriptions of tfle parties at rectttei, a 1, u 3 We pielirninary objection is oveiruled, the en appeal JOUJ b rendered .. jncornpetet for want of leave to appeal to this Cou. HEnce his prayer that tne prehrninary objection he sustained and the appeal be struck out with costs Counsel for the frst respondent citea we case of Tanzania Telecommunications and 4 Others versus TRI TelecommunicatiOn ianni. Ltd. Qvil Aphcation No. .61 'of 2003 (uniepofted) in which a single Judqe .trucL off a Notice of Appeal under Rule 82of the Tnania Court of Apea! Rules, 979j H tie grourid that the relevant Notice of Appeal did not comply VVI lt1h the . provisions of Rule 76 of the Court of ApeaiRu1es ; 1979. Hefuthr• cited the case of Kishimba (T) Trade5 LW and Jumanrw Kisbimba versus Tan2ania Reeñue AUthority, Civ...i Apflt.doi No. 47 of 2003 (unrëofted) wherefti the rspdndent sought tOtrikIr ..... .. out a Notice of Appeal because neither the copy at the NoUc f Pppedl noi the copy of the Decree appealed eujnsr were eciud ci V . the record of appeal thencEr.erderirig the•said appeal incompeten± . 4 It: Js our co•nidred View that the above cited cases are disunguishabie from the present case wher in U Notice of Appeal and the Decree appealed against reflect no it guai ities Dr. Kaping•a f learned counsel for the applicant, conceded that theie was an error in misdescribing the appellant at Page 227 and 238 of the record of appeal, which he said, was inadveitent and possibly a typing error in view of the act that there is no misdescription of, the parties in the text of tie Ruling and Drawn O icr appealed from Counsel for , the appeltan Therefore sought leavk> to rectify the misdescriptiori of the pa ties in the t1tle 5 ol the Ruing and Drawn Order of the High Court at Pqes 22 and 238 of the record of appeal With regdrd to the ptaver for leave to rert1fi ft'c record under 4 he Slip Rule, Dr Kapinga cited me case of Jewels and Anthiques (T) Ltd versus P4a'U'bna11.Shippjng Açjencies Co Ltd i994) TLP 107 in which the Court held: 5 As per Section 96 of the .CivH. Procedure Code, 1966, clerical and arithmetical mistakes. ma.be corrected at any Ume, applications, to correct the same .threfore 1 are not subject to any limitation of time. Counsel for the appellant also referred us to the case of Vaflabhdas Karsandas Rarnga versus Mansukhlal Jwraj and Others 1965) F A 700 In that case, the then Court of Appeal of EasLeiri ' /\frica considered the plicabiJi'o1 the Slip Rule and held: . 'Slip Orders' m"ay.he made. to rectify omissiQns 'resulting from the failure of c;dunsel to make some particular application. We a.re, in the light of the above, sUsfied that the misde5uIpUuu ul the parties in the RuHng and Dawn Order of the 1 ugh Court at Pages 27 and 738 of tLit record of appeal was a typing error because t h e p tular err oi are no reflected in the text ...... of the Ruling and Dra 1 rde VVe ar also satisfied thaL the said .... .... .... .misclescription of the parties is a minor and curable defect under the