gobanya f hezwa vs the commissioner general tanzania revenue authority 2010 tzca 102 23 july 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA ( CORAM: MUNUO. J.A.. LUANDA. J.A.. And MJASIRI. J.A. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2008 GOBANYA F. HEZWA.............................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE COMMISIONER GENERAL TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY............................................... RESPONDENTS (Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya) (Mrema, J.) Dated the 20th day of September, 2007 in Civil Case No. 2 of 2002 RULING OF THE COURT 20th & 23rd July, 2010 LUANDA. J.A.: The above named appellant is dissatisfied with the finding of the High Court sitting at Mbeya in Civil Case No. 2 of 2002. He duly processed his appeal by first lodging his notice of appeal and eventually on 23/11/2007 filed his appeal. l On 7th March, 2008 the respondent filed a preliminary objection under the then Rule 100 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 to the effect that the appeal is incompetent for failure to comply with Order XX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 33. The above stated Rule deals with decree. When the matter came up for hearing, Mr. Evarist Mashiba, Legal Officer with the respondent informed the Court that their counsel has travelled outside the country. He prayed that the matter be adjourned to another date. Having gone through the record and having perused the copy of the decree, we were of the view that the objection is meritorious. Instead of adjourning the matter, we asked Mr. Victor Mkumbe learned counsel for the appellant whether he conceded to the point raised. Mr. Mkumbe did not. He was of the view that the decree is properly dated and signed. So, the appeal is properly before the Court, he submitted. 2 Rule 89(1) of the Court Rules, 1979 enumerates documents which are mandatorily required to be emboded in the record of appeal from matters arising from the High Court in its original jurisdiction. One of such document is a copy of a decree (see paragraph (h) of sub-Rulel of Rule 89 of the Rules). A copy of decree from matters originating from High Court is required to be properly dated and signed. This is provided under Order XX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 33 RE 2002. The Rule reads. 7. The decree shall bear the date of the day on which the judgment was pronounced, and, when the judge or magistrate has satisfied himself that the decree has been drawn up in accordance with the judgment he shall sign the decree. There is a chain of authorities to the effect that the record of appeal which contains a decree which is not properly dated and/or signed renders the appeal incompetent and such appeal is liable to be struck out (see: 3 Bahadnarali E. Shamji & another V The Treasury Registrar, Ministry of Finance & 4 Others Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2003, Uniafrico Ltd & 2 Others V Exim Bank (T) Ltd Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2006; Mkama Pastory V TRA Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2006; Ami (TZ) Ltd V OTTU on behalf of P.L. Assenga and 106 others Civil Application No. 72 of 2002; Haruna Mpangaos and 902 others V Tanzania Portland Cement Co. Ltd Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2007 and Kashemeza Phares Kabuye V. Choya Anatory Kasazi Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2007 (all unreported). In Uniafrico Ltd case cited supra, the Court held, we quote: "Under the Rule, it is clear that a decree must unambiguously set the date on which the judgment was given. So, the decree must bear the same date as the judgment. The date of the decree is the date on which judgment was delivered - see Sarkar on Civil Court Practice Procedural Manual, Tenth Edition, at page 205. The date is important for purposes of limitation because the period of limitation for an appeal from a judgment runs from the date on which it was pronounced". In the instant case the decree, which does not comply with the court forms either, reads as hereunder:- DECREE The P la in tiffprays fo r the follow ing orders:- (a) Payment o f TShs 603,423,452/= as claim ed above in the plaint. (b) Interest o f 1% p er day o f the D ecretal current from the date o f filin g this su it till when paym ent is made in full. (c) An order that the P la in tiff was wrongfully retired by the Defendant. (d) An order that the P la in tiff be reinstated in service a t fu ll pay from the date o f retirem ent till the date o f com pulsory retirem ent which is 3Cfh day o f June, 2004. Costs o f this su it paid by the defendant Any other order(s) this court deems fit to grant - This case coming on this 2 (fh d a y o f Septem ber, 2 0 0 7 for fin al disposal before Honorable A. C. Mrema, Judge in the presence o f the P la in tiff his Advocate Mr. Mashiba learned counsel for Tanzania Revenue Authority Defendant IT IS O RDERED th a t: For fairness and interest o f Justice, I hereby direct that PW1 subm it to Tanzania Revenue Authority his proper transport costs by 1st class train from Mwanza to Kigoma via Tabora and then by road to Makamba Village in Kasuiu D istrict Such costs should include subsistence allowances as w ell as costs for the approved luggage. The rate should be those applicable in the m arket in 1999 when PW1 retired. I f the total costs for repatriation w ill surplus (sic) the amount adm itted to have been paid to PW1 when he vacated office, then the difference should be paid to him forthwith. As regards costs, I am o f the view that the nature o f the su it is not one justifying this court to order costs against the p la in tiff who has lo st the suit. In sum the su it is hereby dism issed save for the exception on repatriation allowance as directed above. I make no order as to costs. GIVEN under m y hand and the seal o f the Court this l& h d a y o f O ctober, 2007. A.C. MREMA JUDGE Signed on 5 th d a y o f N ovem ber, 2 0 0 7 by Hon. S. B. Lukelelwa, Judge on grounds that the presiding Judge has vacated office by virtue o f achieving the com pulsory retirem ent age. Signed S. B. LUKELELWA JUDGE (Em phasis supplied) In the instant case the judgment was delivered on 20/9/2007; whereas the "decree" bears three different dates at different places as reproduced above. The decree was sealed on 19/10/2007 but was signed on 5/11/2007. Obviously, the date of the decree differs from the date the judgment was pronounced. Taking the "decree" as it is, it is clear that the mandatory requirements of Order XX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 were not complied with. We would have ended here. But we would like to point out, in passing, that even the decree itself was not substantially drawn in conformity with the forms in use under the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1908 which are in force in Tanzania by virtue of section 101(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 as the same are yet to be replaced. The section reads: 101(3) All forms heretofore in use in connection with proceedings under the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as in force in Tanzania shall, where applicable and subject to such variations as may be necessary, be deemed to be forms approved by the Chief Justice for use in connection with proceedings under this Code until replaced by forms prescribed or approved by the Chief Justice under subsection(l). In Uniafrico case the Court reproduced a decree form and it reads: D ECREE IN O R IG IN AL S U IT (O RD ER 20, R U LES 6 ,7) Title Claim for................... This su it coming this day fo r fin a l disposal before..... in the presence o f ...................... for the p la in tiff and o f .......................... for the defendant, it is ordered and decreed that................................ and the sum o f Rs................. be paid by th e .............. to the ................................. on account o f the costs o f this su it with interest thereon a t the rate o f .............................. per cent per annum from this date to the date o f realization. 10 Given under m y Hand and seal o f the court this............. day o f .............. 2010. Judge As already said the drawn decree in this appeal was not drawn as per the above form. In sum as the record of appeal does not contain a valid decree, the appeal is incompetent. The same is struck out. Since it is the Court which played a big role in disposing the preliminary objection, we think it is prudent that each party to bear its own costs. It is so ordered. DATED at MBEYA this 21st day of July, 2010. JUSTICE OF APPEAL JUSTICE OF APPEAL JUSTICE OF APPEAL 12