20121031 TZCA Dar es Salaam

.. :;;._: 'IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TAN.ZANIA

ATARUSHA (CORAM: OTHMAN, C.J., KIMARO, J.A., And MASSATI, J.A.) .";'"., .. ··: CIVIL APPEAL NO • .47 OF 2012 · GODBfESSJONATHAN . ,::'.: LEMA..................................... ~ .

APPELLANT :{.;,... VERSUS 1. MUS~ HAMISI MKANGA I 2. AGNE~ GIOION MOLLEL '·· ~ f ... .......................

RESPONDENTS 3. HAPPY . .,, . EMMANUEL KIVUY0-1- . . ·. . · -· (App~al from the judgment of the High Court of Tanzania at · i: Arusha). · · ·'.-~:; . (Rwakibarila,J.} dated Stll day of April, 2012 in .. ,,usceHaneous Civil Cause No;13 of 2010 . . .. . RULING OF THE COURT 2•td & st" Nov,~rnber, 2012. •. · Godbless Jonathan Lema, the· appella.nt, won the Parliamentary Elections-f¥ the Arusha Urban Constituency in the country's· 2010 General Ele<t,Jons. He contested the elections under the Chama cha Demokrasia na • : Maend~leo (CtiADEMA) pcfrtical party. He scored 56, 460 votes against Dr. . Bati:da Saiha..: ·surian who ran· next by a score of 37, 460 votes. Dr. Batilda 1 I ._•(' •·.:··. . .... - Salha Burian cqntested the elections under the Chama Cha: Mapiriduzi · (CCM). Musa Hamisi Mkanga, Agnes Gidion Mollel and Happt Emanuel . ..-:: Kivuyo, the respondents in this appeal ·.·wer~ registered··votei:s;:and;they exercised their right of voting on the Election Day. They . :sJccessfully challenged the results of the _election on allegations that thJ_ap~~llant mad<=_ utterances in the election campaigns which undetm!ned !µ~ Ppsition · of Dr. Batilda Salha Burian hence influencedvoters . : not .to. .vote . '• for . fi2r . . . ~ . .-,.•.. . . The High Court which was the triai Court, nullified the· elections.),_ appeal. . The appeal was filed within the sixty days prescr(eq byRule __

,__ _ . ·- .. · . ... · ·. ·. ,;.,~. ~·· . .• .._: ·. ~· Aggrieved by the decision of th~ trial·court, t~e appeliatt fl~ !;41.:,------------ . 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 hereinafter referred to as the !': Court Rules . .When the appeal . was called . on .•· for the .hearing, .. Mt: ·. Methocl Kimomogoro and Tundu Lissu, learned advocates. appeared. for the appellant and Mr. Alute Mughwai and Modest- i\krda, · teame<=(_:iadvdcates appeared for the respondents. The Attorney General was a tj~rty 1n the proceedings in the t~ial court. lri the appe~I h~'was:jolhecl ~s~inec~ssary' · 2 .·,,· .: t, _..: ,· . · party. Mr. T1moth Vitalis, learned Principal State Attorney appeared on behalf of th~ Attorney General. • Befor~ going to the appeal, we have first to determine a preliminary objection raised by the respondents under Rule 107(1) of the Court Rules. Tne prel!minaiy objection contains three grounds as reproduced -~ ... 11ereur,!.ler: ..... (a} ·To the extent that the decree makes reference to section 113 .(1) -{7j olthe National Elections Act (CAP 343, R.E. 2010), it • does not agree with the Judgment on which it is founded, contrary to Order XX rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Code ·/CAP 33 R.E.2002) (b) ·.. The decree is neither sealed with a ·Court 'seal-nor bears the date on which it was extracted, contrary.to Rule 9 of the High .· -~ c,ourt Regislrie$ Ru(e$,

2003(G.N. No. 96 of2005). (c) . The decree IS. fJOt drawn according. to the prescribed form, ~co(1trary to secti0[J _101 (3) oi i:he Civil Procedure Code. 3 ··. ,.!." .. ; .: ' , In compliance with Rule .106(1) and (8) of the Court· Rules, the learned advocates for the resp~ctive parties filed. written submissions. to support their positions. . ·':. :,· . . Citing Order XX .Rule 6 of. the Civil Procedure Code (0:tp 33 R.E. • . 0 2002) in respect of the fir.st g~ound. of objection, Mr. Muhg~af s?id. the decree in the record of appeal at page 957-958 does not tally with the judgment. The judgment gave a direction. to the Pistrict ·Registrar of the High Court, Arusha Zone to act und~r sec;:t1on :1_1-4-(1)-(7) of tpe }Ja.tiona: Elections Act, cap.· 34l R.E:·· 2oiD and inform ttie Dir.ector )if ll~ctlons about the decision of the court. But ·. the . . decree· . . . ;ays that. th2 . ~egistr-a:r ··.. should act under section i13 (1). - (7). .. The teamed . advocate . . .9idsection . 113 ~as only sub sections (1) and (2). This default, said t!-:e ·teamed advocate, violates Order XX Rule 7 of the Cjvil Proced~re •.&de wh.ich requires the judge to sigr1 ttie decree.after being satisfied thatJt is drawr.- · ··· .... in accordance with the judgement The learned advocate said the error pointed out in the decree makes the decree defective and . . The , appeai __ incompetent. Among

authorities cited in suppo:t of this'lground of . . . . . . ,--~ .. objection are the cases of Philemon . Magh'ehe . .. . t/a . . ·;,.· -;,::,: .· -: V. . Bukine.::fraders 4 ··· Ge.~son.--?1qMet1~~itti~.qvii Appea_l .l\io.. 193 pf ·2011 (unreported) and ..~~~fr!~a-~HtRe·ct ' p a,~4-tvto others ' V~xlm- Bank (T) Limited Civil Apr.cal [o/30 of '!00$ {ur,~reported). He requested the Court to uphold :"thls.gns<f.~J'.~f objectlcm <1nd strf;<e out the appeal. 1 '., ·' '.'Z-~S'.G~t~ ~-~· ,1s grouw.i-ef objection, Mr. Kimomogoro conceded . t the~ <tl1E ·c.:eretH'..ti1e ~ecrce· violates the provisions of Order XX Rule 6 of ca~ 33, •.' 'f:{t11'2t11e ~ses -:J~dawty Phi~emon Ole S~ibul V Solomon · ·-Ote,;5Efl}~~.Ifi~m~ ·TkK -2'J..~a:-ne~dvocate-said t.f:ie-{JefeGt~sca-sli,~----~- .. .,·' ' /,;-:,.,· ' : · oft~1t.~t}~:rd . . .-:~ is·.an-1;;i:'i6guiarrey~hktrearrbe=amel'le,ed-as-it-does--not-go-- . . . ~ -·- -- - - . .. . ·. . -<. . . . . ..\.. '" . f . ~ ·,' ·-·. ,, · ··=·'lo:~~ -f(l:-·;:pi-:ei:e·r:r,a~~e-:-. He ·urg~d the Court to take note of the fact that :..' '. ~ ' ' ··.·-::opms$:C::1l&\ ,~:-t~s :5 pc:.'-t of t:uman natur.e·.. ·cj:::~::•~;J)l:li{, )4r. · Vita:ls :eafned. ·Principal State Attorney· supported · .:-. , .tr.l:> su::>mi-.i~i~~- ·:-:~de j_y -~:12: appe;~ant~s advocate· thct the· errors on-· the . .. f:> ~:i tn~ ·suL-s~a~ce c~ the decree and it !s a situation which -·

·decr~e~~-t~ . _..,,,, ... ,',. 'u1e:·deci,: Ke dtec ti~-ec~-~f 21: 5~ Century Food and Package ·t.'tt.'.:H~~:r{?~anbi5't~-i-aSu-;2{. 'Prod1..cer$ Association and -uthers f2005j ·· · T.L.R . .::. c:r,q sa_id-that .;·-,:,2--= the ~oort ts partly to blame for failing to act 5 diligently, a duty.entrusted on it, parties should not be condemned wholly , • • :.•:,• _• ••,'... , • • .•,•:Ar~,. '••••••••, • ~••• •• ....,: • • I>~'? ?f:•, ~)~; •"•·• • :::,~--.. • ,• • ·:. -:• for a fault they_ believed that the party who wasentrusted to·pr~pare the • , . ·:;::.. ". .._ ... __ ,;.1 . ::·~;:· .··.:. decree petformed his duty diligently. On our part, this ground of objection<~eed not -~eiain. ~'.~ ... :·For'• a' better understanding of our findings on the grounds of objection, we •, . . -. ··_ .. •._ ' . :>-· -_._ ' _:_"'.' ,.• ·:-,- .- :.·(:,,_ --- :. ;.-·:_~-~~ti\), . \:,:.·.::~i~_;.'/:.: ~ reproduce the . portio11·of . ~ ihe decr~e . . which is being challenged.-<fhat . . .- . is the orders which were given in the-0ecree. . ~ - - . ::,.:· •' - ... -·: _: . . - . '"-_. ···. ·. The electtbii of the respondent~;-1..c'liodbless..:JptJ~YJ~,~etlJa . as a)nerriber of Parliament· for,Arush;,r£1rb;Jfff:(lr~titye,n,o/t,iB:,·"·------- __ _ . the 2010 year General Elections iSdeela_red,yold,:- : . {ii) Respondent - ' No.1 alone is condemned . ib·: costs ;' ·•' .t; ~it, he shall .. ,,_.·. .

.. shoulder costs for a_ll threepetitioners; and {iii} The Hon. District Registrar for_Arusha Hifj)J_.C:o~rt 40,oe;.,shol)ld~" \ .. · immediately facilitate communication•·with -J/Je ;Director,,..of. · Elections about thls,'court's ..decision in •comp/f?na?· .with· · .;,;_,.:;··.-/:_;:;<i·.... :c.:'.{{j,L ;.,:;~•,\;. ":, .• !.,'-· .._ ;_ '• ~ •.;{; ' f. _:;ecliorr iiJ(Ji _: (7) of the· National Elections Act,

BYTHECOURT Signature G.K. Rwakibarita·

JUDGE . ·:. . .. --~~{- )i-t~:'\~~---c:,at~ ·vX~t-:-=n<;>~.-0S' prpr.ot.: need .. - -it must ;also be •signed by · -".~i?t4r )r:.=?5t?:5 ~ ;f:'~hi ca5s wa? tr.red in the High Court or the -magistrate if "~ ~:,:~s-if!~jn:;;;.:l:; N;,.i3trtt2s\-cciurts._. The law further requires the judge ,, ·, ---~/,:· .. . Ci: ;~~gi5~~t~d:J~ign:~-~,decr~henti~/~he is satisfi~ that it has been ·trt*:i;~fije;;;/::,;::ftbr:g<'.,~-decis!ons of the Court interpreting these 7 Bank (T} Limited (supra) anq Ami (Tannzani~) 11_}:[ted Y::Ottu o": behalf of P.L. Asse11ga and~~~ ot~~rs ·, Civit,~;pli:~~n •· ~-~~·;:,::'·' ~J.6 ~~- 2G02° '. :~_.....;.,:.:.'.•'.!~<:.::_~~-\-·~·--/~.> _ 1.:·:,· ( unreported). It is obvious that 'the decree which' forms 'the subject matter of the ~ , . - . ,• ·- . . . . ,\. . .:·•. appeal does not ag·ree with the judf)rnent. · The judgment refefs 1'.Q . '\ .. sections 114 ( 1) - (7) of the Elections Act .· but the decree . :-efe°rsto •.. · ~- sectiQfl . ,·,. 113(1)- (7). Obviously the decree and the judgment are in variance. The decree violates Order XX Rule 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure ~ode. q::mtend.J~at the' defe~ is not fataL Th~y a~~(){:!a~~. i~: wi\ti. eitiJer a ~lip .qf: . 1 ~: ' -· ~ ·. · ·. ; ·:·.:-r·_'-r~t >·\:y~ct;r.~ ··· - · -.... ·- -.- • : ,_ · -·:'•:~ -.. • - ':: ·.: ._ : .. , :~~· --. :·_· ·- ttw pen..,_ ·-·•or a typing .-'~-' . .. , mistake .and such a

mistake does not go Lo s4;,~tanc~ / .. : :--.. ,_.. , .. :•::,· ··:. -·: -~ .-' ~-~----- ..; .:--::... ·--~--~-~--- _ . . ··.·_ ··.:.: :·/.. , t~~<:} ·-:i-_!{..-· of the de~ree. They prayed that this ground of objection b~ dsr.iisse,c:i. ; . . · · , . · - · .· - · '.: - . · • '.· : 7 : · :, ·· ' .• : · ' :. ·. ·• ._ · ::ct(::< ~-O.:::'S:· . . On our part, . we agree .with .the tean1e.d·;ad~•o~~-;lP·r-ttc~}9.3~B~•':. , · on the first - groµ11d . of .objection .thatthe . errqr,cou!¢._,be.:ei~eri~-9f-tr~"'~--"~-.'-. ·-.. . . ·'··.-:.-.•_;~ ·--•- .. _:\~--~-,~-: .... -· . __:._.__ ,~-~~-- .. . .· . -•". _-: slip of the pen.o_r.typographi~at.and.r1ot.otsubstc1pi,i-A.1{i}~J?Up~-p;~~,fq~,-·, ....•. ,_ the one who prep,)~~ !!le d<;<;reteJw,.tv~iQg,:al)\!, \y~~r;Jp).;,11,i~'.tQ~i~ :-~--~·,;,,---:'.:--.:-:·,-,,;_--_;;'-;o:'--'-',-'=---"-'~"''-';f=-._~;.:...,.,;= .. .-_;_,..<c_.:"-·'... ♦· . .., . :;,:, ~ ~ho ud- trk.>t/p:ng. . f.ne one who prepared the decree co~ld have instead ... :•.•;~ . ·-~----·· , of w,t1ng ?5~:f<m t-:4(:) -· (7).wr!te section 113 (1) - (7). That error .:•1. . v1:e®i.s;{go to_the_t,p~:ig. If the error was-committed by the one who did ~h~- l)9J~11~ the~ the ~istake is one c)Ssociated with a typing mistake. It . . k , is -a-keyt~'1i;\v'hisrake. The one who did the typing typed 113 instead of 1·~4.. ::;:;~ t~t~~- acqua17teb v.Jith the keyboard, they will easily

.accept that ~¢ +-'- .·.>1.. ,&;,..{· :-,...~. .. • • . • Section 113 of the ••• <II 1 • suc;1-11.,:i~.{.tii x:. -=-- cor:n:r.·1•.::20 each time and again. ; .. ' . . . . . . . "' . :,.' . . sfat~+i4~rtY\; A\?:'\~ct~ onri subsections-fl) and (2). Moreover, the :.. ' -~ -~ --•· ·-~_·,_-:;,..'}-._J.~~:~ .....;_/_:.::·~~.=-~-;;~. ~:rl,>:-4;:-~;..J_.~}::/~•~---\-n .-t---~Y ·g'--i_·rg· · ~ - - ... .:..-.~·. _-4_~~'\--l".,.....i,lt..~...... 1 ,•i,•o-!1of'...,.~.'l.0.:»1~ ~; it::-rT1M-td -rnmun•caf-~ng the results of the ' I t.1 .. • Th€: sec'cion deali.ng___wJLU----------- :·. :./~f' ;.~lf~;;,: ·. -~•j~~'~.J:&~~. ~c~)-.:~..,.C 4:~',~--"" C::v · ~~,' ~ . .r. ~ ·-~ , .. '. -_s.·:., ~-';.:,t••~•'c(·'"'"·~----!.,J',V \"·/ 'i,. · · / .. :; ~-. " .(7J .. --~•S:c:i)L 10., U,e.' ·e1 ,O,· tn t he mix · ~r ... · • up, , 0f ~ic2c\t;,~ifl1;~ 't ~-cis~·-Bs:>L i;>~sars ,aboVe ,:11eets<a_j/;.bthe~ requirements as . f.··. .· -;r-1i2.::;l1>~f:~\>~'~i·:,..:,~::, ·;I:t,i:;'dc?~ and sig;:iet:!-by.the learned trial judge: · ·;_;;-.;.•~~•ti~'.:· the iee,ec-1.S. w~ich · were., in the cases of Phi lemon ·tiah~t~,;~1:f·t/i!-,aii!<a.1e .. .J Traders '{supra) and·uniafrico Limited and .~i:.ve ~!~;rJ (stzpra fwhe:~ the date -of the pronouncements of the : . ·. :. . . ·:-. : ..< . . • ~gr.ner.:/~~;~ci . l(llil1-that one ort the decree, . . \ in this-appealthe date of . . 9 .{ . : r. the judgment and the one on

.·. decre~ tallies. ~he i:~&Jg~nt was ~ r. !-: .; ·,,:·· '. .,·· ~- >···;. .~---·.-;. pronounced on 5 April, 2002. · This is th~ date reflected oc the:decre~; l.t th , . _,::;:, "{i·. :· __ .,. '._..... :.-:· ::·::·- ,. . ·r: . is also signed by Rwakibarila, the learne~ j\JdQe· w}llo pretired over ,the •::;i :· \• '•.,,c, .. :./ • '' proceedings. This appe~I can· be tjistinguishec.1 fro(!): ph(Y.re. c-as~{ U~r :: ·-·.· .. ~-' ...... ::·. . ,.;- . :·.. ·. :~-~ -/~/--.. ~~--~-<-.~,-- :~ ;,; . :,~:-.-:---'";. ~.,_. the circumstances we make a finding thatthe fr~ gmund O;,AbJ~~ti?~has ·_ ·~- ~-.,_.:..:...~_-. ·- ' · m·erit <;>nly to the ext-ent ttia~ there is an ~:-ror in ~h~ ,cycr2~ if 0.""'v¥x up cf • • • • • ··>.,·-'_.. ·.r :·,-·:. _ :·:~r·~---~. ----~·-:~? -.. :·_. ·. • J' • • ... _.:.·---;::~-~-- , . . ).: • sections. However, the error i~ either rn,1e of J · s!i!> of. ttie\1:IB-r. ~-f. q - - .·.. -__ - _, _-_ -_ .• - - ··-~ •t'.·.:·.·· :~r·,. -~-~-:- . ~{t_:··--_:_--'·/.....; .,.- ---::-y - _ty209raphical error. For this ~eason, the ~~<rec car\ be 2.1'ch1e!:! .W';r,iez · .· •... . ---:;,,:--•. -,'·: .. ·. {"·"~· . :' ., ·,;,~;:-! ··,e,,~;;;-·-=· ~~-~~=~a.i., rule. 111 of the Court Rules. .... _._.·,·,.··. ' .. -~\ g~~:i::~:~:::::::'.::~:;::;;;:;~:i:~;;t, . . .·. · . b~ ,.sealec;I and bear the .date \Vhen it was, extracted. 1-~~ ~snte-'\teq that r. s;;; the wo~ ,hall

.haS,been.:~d1 it w~s.;:~.~;,;:~)d~;:~· .. . . this appeal to be sealed and: d~~ of ~~ractJ~:,. to r~flect the ' ~,rs~:~~e-:~. ----- •.-:{•.- there is r:,o compliance wi~h tbi.s requireT~nt in the_(l?<?,~7~\ ~e-~ffro~9.~~e , :. - -.-:.....,C..-_,,._:_:..:_:....::.:.,..:. · .• .· • · · ' .. · .. · · ·i'·.·· ... ,.0 •.~-..~ . . advocates for th7._appe_U.~~~- .fo~- h_~rriedly ·. fi\i~ _}~~--:~P?,~~I_ i{fil~~.:. ~!;\,.:: , ~ . . :. :: . - .. . .. - -- -- . -- ......•. , .... .- . ... --~-~ . .': .. .. ,::. ~: . .,._: --~-.:.:- __:~_:~\~--.:_ ·--~- ...:.:_·:;:.-:.: -~-~ ;:. . .: - ~: ·• ·.. ..... - - . , checking the propriety of. the documents. He <-i.ted- :trtH:ase of'Jttf;,r~ey General V~ Lesn.oi Nd:lnai 8. Jo;e;~ s'..ray~.~ir:;tr[;·:;~;,m:: . _ . _. -·-·. . : ,·::~· ·, • ,1/:•2. '' {1~8-t1: Ytlf 214-~Nhl:.fe·•t~.e C~wt h~k~ ~hat· a P,ublic seal is essenti9I for - . _'-'': - - •r - _, -- -~9D~<4:i1~7?Grder·o-::act"£~¢~Jer'."i k::'i!i~.d by the Presidentva!id. The omission of <::1-r·@tt_tt s~Par~ -ciet~· ot {;xtractlon Q:'l the decree~ said the learned -·:c:l,7~~t~~~e=g·::tH1:'.!~1k:. ,:--?e,prc)\/edthat the objection be upheld. '.>--:::<-~fl'.T)crf:-~~~r'zc:1~--6 t3~1>k seal is unique and has to be stamped - , , ' :,.;_ r1r? ff::::t)-~1:i 2·~~1-~. ~,b 5_2:d O,rder XX -Rules 6 .and 7 of. Clvil I: . : ·_:, .• \: :,·.t,_'. - ~.- ;·:a_- r ·. ..:· ·,.• ·,; .•. - . ·. , - .

. ;_;,>r7,t,<:,:J-w'1:~ .:.;;,:tr,.~:."!;'fd~~ e•xr;actirui:.so as- to mak.eJt. .'lalid~H~ee,...__----'.-___~ 7 -• ·s,..;j,:{._},.'.j );,;L....,·.... , hC~' ,..,,- - h,-~!l,.....~c"'s~a~...,.,,f.,1, _.:• e-dec.e ..,,;,,,;, l:.):;·~-i:i:rf,~-1:LJ•~~"'-'<_: :•lf\1~!~,,~.,;11I C" L _11,w,e Lfl ., e-va 1·d I • H·1s :! :;,;_J~t:"'s,~t'f~t:1'.t~-~r.~,..K:~_r" u¼i~:-t~fiT'=s, ·2oos:~are ~admil'!istral:ive. - . Aftera11,~ _. _ - - - • _- ,.' t - :r :.. ---~~/_'._ - . :·. . . ,. . .(i! . . . ._ ..:~-~ , . . . 'I'· . ·:.; .. . • . .. . • _-,, :z?;,t:-:lt:';!:: . ..~·ifti~t!-,:~::-..vcc,,.,;j:"J:,•'>::::i>~'~°f -~ . tr:e -~ct implemented by the Jl:ldge but-by· " r, ·i,ir,,;,,;:.:,,:,,s::-c~~~,.;i,§Jtt'}'f-a;~~t·~:'S;;:io:;-C:,~:·;~1l:d:;e,,oi·71i;iS10i1 :Of ·the court -seal -and ,date ,of .,..:/,.'a,}:t~,:Yi;L~,:SC,Yr:,i:~ rr:a~~ 'i'.l~:e:decr2'2':! --lr-rvapd for piJipcses of:an appeal. - I- ,-\ i\ /· -~,:~. -.•• · i··.. . •, I · _ . • • \'1_r;\tn:a.;:~ r-1}H:!::·~;FF.tfrn2y; \Jer-ier~ _said t~re _appeHant nad ... n....,o~dl,,4-1...1ty'f---_...,taU--------'-----~- &~:=r::§:::.:::::::~2:::~::ment Notlre 11 .. ,\ .. _, .,.;!.,:;-:· "All . summonses,. . warrants,. orders,. decrees,. n~tice~ and mandatc/f/JliJce;s~s. ~MtsoeJillv( •3':'. the court maybe slgi1edbyanyjud9:e-ot.;•,t;y,a '. ·..·: ~-----------·--------~------------~-----~- ~e Registr:(Jr and.shall $£¥i~<lJYh~h t'J~,§¥11 pt

tt~~ . ... ; . .,,'"'·-.:- ··: ---.;;~~---- Court Every order of the Court shall -b?.· dated as • -; .. , • '. •;,;.'.•-::,, _.•:~::;., .. .' ••':..:t,: ••:• ,•' : .:. ~•:•._:<•., C ,.:.--:;.' the date on whic~ the Ju1gme11t 1vasgiiieh order· made ·and shall in addition show the. date on .. which the order was ~. extracted." . _.,..., · , the Court not to amend the H1gti Court·Reg1sti'ies,Ru1~..,..:.~i~s w~;:.,:"·~_"·<~: · "' ,.,,_ . . ,·. ·,;.- they·were prior to cotnin~ into· force· of Gover{l'.'p~>;(~i3·°i·4"\ 22?:, •t~t,[~i, '. · ( ·. ·:· r ·. ;-: ··.•i. intfbduced into'the Civil Procedllh~ C::6de'theis1ue \J{f;°tt~itft.~~ F1fr,d:r-o~:. of the :decree• to b~ th~'va11d".dat~ ·ofttie,,decreeri• ·to- grJe·rct~i~e~;b~'fo/i~:~·,,: : provisions of Order~ Rule 6 and 7, arid avotd mW cq:if~sjDf; (1~:)hr,~:r _.,,\:, - . ·:-::. ~_{.->.;!,.:'-.-'. . . _..-_.: ..- .-,. :=-:~. ; ...·: -~· - .....-.-.:,__ ,.: ,:_;':~. -::·,-'···fi.,:;~::-:/-- ·!-<z· -- N_?tice ·No;96 of 2005 ought to have been an;:~nded _. i·{::;,'1::t):,:.'<{:,· .... 1 . ~< ;;; - While we concede that the provisions of Ord~r .XX Rule 6 and7 <;f the ";'.:_:/1tf~_::~}~--·.· _-., . - · .. ___>·>: :~;-:_-_•.'.~-- :{:\/'·::_::·:-~:-\_->::"·~·--> - Civil Procedure Code have to be read together with the 1--~h Cou:t __ _·.· •:-'~ · -.~i~.y/< .\i;:~_;j,,,:::-:i~t"•CLL ; , ,---· --~~--, . .:. ,..c, '•c~':. 12 I•. r. «'.._ \

Lf-- :.,·: .,-· V"" I r- I_,:- ) Ret'.Sti-~is~ts:bs, Z'OJS, Otff co/ls~dered opinion i~ that non compliance with .~h;- ~~ 03ult 8c£;-i$'Jy:', tJ;~s: does not affect the validity of the decree □-~·t!se· ll:L-or.--Jsskm-1:loes ·c:noL:.:affect the substance of the decree. - . -'-_ . : . t . - - • More<YJc:):f1is .. ' ·-.· . €01~ . - ¼.~..;~r. dea~itro with the-format .. of.extraction of decrees U9~~:ie !m.ilan Code.13-f Civ:t Procedure, 1908 in the case of Uniafrico .:1.."."'{~~,' -(c:,'.~-\ '-eL...I JJ"c-~>"~''i"•,_--,----,---.c...- .~- ... ·:,1'.••~~ ;;::,~r:.•CAJ71 . .JU~-=~t..,:.._. ,.. ,.··1 .,. . -_- - " '7he oth~:rf"c~ture In the formcs-that_there .'':! '!S1i"'ff:Jpl~W,-::f--':.'-'2.-'r-s~rt_/ng the dai"e _of-issui11g '. ;~'fr1.;;-1 d~c_,!'fd.~~ --'~ink this fezture is also si!}tr!'!kiliCt: i;Jear'Jse · t1te/dt1te of issuing -a :;_'.(:c~~r; of-iii! i~;;-ee !:does not~a~e to be · · '.:'t-~'¥i~-~~'t¥~:~1as.~c~ -, 'The·ft;suance~f a= ·- -~-- -·:,;:;J.i;.~;::Jf: .. . •- /b ---;.x:~J:t:iB· ~ -'qf ' . - an - -·::.·dmin_istrativif ~- -- --- --:~ :- -· :);~){,;;.:~t'f?;.;,fl?t?it:,/1!,rf!~it:'lne= ., ·_ · :··•:-;¼\i';i,::et'k:.t::f;_t~~:<~\,i_·~~ce-b!f./isi:i:ir.g:;i .decre~ is not a •- ··· . 13 I j I i. In none of the above cas~s, did .~h~_co,u1_-(~ci~p~mrrt;,~ p~crees_-~~~e ~f - - - . . .. ·. - .... , ,. ___ ,:. ..,. :·,:•::'·._·,-.'•-::A-_·:.- __ : ._. -·:'j,.··

·_"·;-•_:--._/•,.:,·· non compliance: ~ith the pre~cri_~edJ9tn1, _bp~ dti~Jo .. . ,. ... . . '. ·-. . . :~5.~1 j;lrj,~t~~'.Jf~, . .. ; :-· ·. . ·.:_. . ,;, .;-:. ·,. ~:·.,:-.·~ J,:. ,. '":·"•:::,_. - are thus distinguish~,bl~.. .. : _ : ·_: - -- -· -.. ::.·,._·:-_· ··=··: · . ·. ._ _ -_ :.- ___ :-.._~-~-;~i:·:_ ·..:·:~,.:.:..,.';.:.-:~-:tk~::.=~~:<\:-.-:- . The prelim!nary objection on this point is def~-~;ect, g}ve11 ·t,fle case o~·-.·_. . .·· . .· . _ .. ·.... , ·..-: -. -- <r: .,_:._, -· _.· -:;.·. - - ~ . '-'--c ·-'--"-'--~ Uniafrico .(supra) cited ab6ve. . For. purposes. of ~p~~a>, ttle ,.decree formi~g the subject matter of 'this ,appeai wo~i~cr!~ot be;-,~ithi~~ ·b?;~r :-.-:_.\'.i'·,. ·omission of the date of issue of the decree aRd a ,;ou.g: s~oh '. . _. For -the· last objection Mr. ~ugh~~:::_sljbTTJ}tt,f-t~at{$';1."\cree:-_---,----~~=;-=;~~cc;;. as drawn does not comply ~vith tlie pi-~cribJd:fotrfi}·™)~~rri:t'fi\eCaurt .t~ ·tJ,e case pf P1J]1!1!11()~ ··M;n~•~~e,\!f ij[i~~,Jfg~>:,.~'.' · .·;:J:;•::::::;i:i:eo::1t1;tL:::,1::h: .. of.M()hilmed- E~t~·rpri_s~s (T) .Llinit~d,\f!.}1a~~~~. ~~~¥{~:1-'tlas~a:·_ -_ ..... -·.;/" '.-....:-. . _, .. ·-:.:~ .... ~.- ...... -,:.··: ... -·. .._-. \! , .,. -~~·_,.:.: ·_-;_·=:-~•itt:"---:?··-;r . ·: -_..._~:- .5:,:.. ---.://·:t_'.-:.~.?-"··-_ -..:'.'.. _,:_. , ·.... _._ ·:·---- civil •AppHcation Nq. 33 .of ~012 {1mtepcir:t~)f'h~\~-;d

su.hstanJ;{v~j?.!Gtka, _. , - the appeal be struck out. __ . _.:. · . .• •,I• ,•·· ..., .- l.4 ; .· . ••·,,.''7'."''.;,;;s··- _.. ,,,_';•,'._':· ·,,_f,,,);h._:•, .' . . )_ · ··. '. ;, ,.;,._l, .. -.,:'".: On- .t11s p~,- .r:(,;,. K1rnL:mog9rq a~~eec:L that the ·Court should not {}~.:( . :'.; •~:•.,' .' .--,):;. '.:\.~i:f§g-j~)if;:rs,.:~~is-.:;:ons- o;. i1z..2~ftei:lties; His :emphasis was that where . . •, ·. .. . . . :½:~~-\. 'f) ·.~- .:::,·~·. _-;: . f .• ; ' • -~ • . • . • ltt:·:·. l, • ✓-,. ·,\ • ' .•• '.'_'. _-·:.tl~s- ;~;o~~--~~~i~-.,-;r; ~i'8gt1{,uity_d~S~10t goto the root of the matter or ~-.,:f ~~~- ·) , :~ i· It· • t;. . .~-- '~. '(_\·.\-~; . ·. . . .' . ·-pr-ejuci:li:e:{):1~ 1>Ett,es/.tf.re CotJtz:shouid order amendment of the decree . . '..: ~ -: :. -~:.x. .. ~ . ~ ' ,.. . ·,He.z:ite6 . .. . th~·-,c~se:of:~iti-~unia·,~Orts . , ' Authority Vs Pembe Flour Mills ;i~.~.i; :•; o,;'7~~eal Nd?:.:0~·2.007:(or:i'.r.eporteo) .to ..support his prayer.of I ~,.!. • ·• ., _t~••, ' • • ••• •~ . • • • '¥, , :_<:,;.'._~-> --~ :,::~-~•'•·;,-._:.: UmL~;~ ~~>~• ◄-:; • ••,,• .... ,:~: ••~t~=-~.,A•:•<,_t,•• ••• •• • • • • -• . . :·.: ": t: ·. ~~-~} :-·.:: ~,.i.:_.__ . :. ...-.. amenr.;,:l::, ;tm. :i;.;;;~, ee.: . . u ?; ti1e·-cic:::usatioh levelled against:the. appellant •.•, . ' .. :~rt;~:-;,~'iJ~1!;~l;;2;lf±if;~; 1;~;:f:~:'.;:;z:l::0::::a;:::u:: :, · . ::,. /'°"- :, ,.;:-

',"'.:~::"'_'-,,·:,·,,,,j£t~-:~:..m2r,:~~?~f'-~'Z''P~~f-$~""--"':'t'.•f,,.!:~e:~'.r..e,:,zM?;ary:00Ject;o_n~oe.d1sm1ssed: :\,.·-' .. ,..·:.· 1 as in force in Tanzania;: shall be deemed to be · · for;,s appr~red by the t!hie/1~/ti~~~~ t:JGe. in connection _with the jJrot'eedli1gs /.mder1Jur,£ade ,i :· . . • .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . ~~- ..... i ~ \ until replaced by formspresqib(X'J Qr apf?~O;'~{P,Y .~ ·. . .... the Chief Justice;. To. the best ·of ow: ktiovrfedge, _ • • • '.•~•·•• H •• : ,.:•,.;.:•-::, ~ .. , •: .. •~>-i•:::.: • ···>•-,.....,_ . : forms under :the Ind!~n.-Code.of. Civil Pro;:fdure hav~ not been replaced b;ri6riM_ p~.:esi:(l~d 1·or approved bythe Chief Justice.?: . , , ;;, . . .~':< <> .,. . . • . ·i.. . _}: • - ' . -~" . Even.in the case of Philerrton Mang'ehe-(~~1~ra}tell2¢4?9il:~Y.-.th~. . . . . . . - . . ·, . IJ .. advocate for the . respondents . . the Court-hel.d t~at:-. . )::.c::..- . ., • ...• -:<-:·, . •;,,:,;._ ~;:,;~ . ·• •·•· .·.· .• . . ..... ::,_--.,---t·,-;-'';·-'~-:--·.......... ·-- . ·. • ---·.::..-::.=--....:::.:.....:::• .:;..:.. •• - .... ;;_ .,: __ ,..: ·, . : . ~ to.· use .tl-ils.-lorm :\ilt/7 :· ,. ~--"'.·:.<,-.,.~ . j• .•.v - . "Our courts art! enjoined. •-+,,,;c"c:-,,·i~ - ' - - - - - - ~ appropriate·· modifications:. •. a~•·. ~eiveti:; ' j ~ ~:;:.-;_-;,~•,:+~·;,~;,-'.c-:~-,-.-·-~-•-.._:~-~-_:c..._ _ _.. _.._-.·~--·-_ .. .

uiviit=RJCO'S-~ase/;_ ·: . . .. •,i:'.',i-:--.::•;;•'.~'-~~'·,•'=';·H•/..,,_,,,,,,::s~;-~··.··~:~.-·---~~-= I,p the case of Tanz~nia Po~Au~fior~~Jiup~q) the.C<g_tqo:'t~~.;\ ..· .._.:·.. ·. ~- . . . . ·... · '- -~-- .. ,...-1(~~·.~···.·-· '-:., .·,.-·.. ,?_•-:'.-'.}-'". _.::, ~-:r,::. ~:._,.: .: . ·._ . ,;. .":.(: _ ~ · . .,-' · :,:·..,?_ ~'."-·•:t}~~~rrt=.:~. :cit the· same observation that:· ~-t~>., '·' '_; --: ~-·-. •i ·fa;.:il; ·wep~fe:,awar~,.·-.fb~,··.cwet-Jl!st~c:e. ,.., i,::,t,,•.•.~·~_i' .has. not' prescribed forms for use in terms -of . - · . , ·. <,,-a:-~ "- -" _,:_..::.: .. , --'· . __ :. . _ "'. · section. 1 Oi(l)}i"the. CPC'· -C6rl~e'qufiitlj, we ·have to re$6rl.; tifforms !!t ~~~'e;t1tfd~f.•~/fe•,~r&ic",c1':: : ', . Code of the Civil Proced,ite, 1Y;i18/Jbdja//f!.>··-·: . . Thisis. permitted uocfer .s~tf90.,:.i01(3) pf-,,{_ .· ·.;::;::;:;:d:::;itJs~H··. .--.··. 16 -- ·--------·--······-· ----··· - - .,..,.,. ,_ - ___ . , . Civil Procedur.e, 1908 are applicable ·ttnefer CPC with · appropriate 1 Since ther~ · are :no prescribed forrns··for use under the CPC as :;-. -:. ' requ!reci by section 1<?1(1), section 101(3) of CPC authorises use of forms •• um:ler· ti1e Ind!a<1 Coce of €Ml ?rocedure but with modification. The • ,4 •• ' ,·,_ \ . . :. mf-11encfJ-:fld-·-the-seaf-43f tf!is -c-qurt '·'· in-:the decree ~r~a.te$ _d.9L.l_bt ·O[l the 0 i a;r~~t~dt~ .~e~i~~~~

~1~e-wbe=Si~~ed-~the decree or his c:ut:1an::y:525'clcs--SC1:3starfci-_-·_ t~eer:ee~--c!ear-±y..:Sbows -that--1t-was--slgned---by: -- - .-·. , , ~·: . \ i//G:-is ''§{V~/; ,/Jt•air my h:21176\-:nd tte seal of this cou.rt ''.on the decree does . -·J:ic;~ a7te~~:-;2~e:~a~:tier/J2~;_Iy-~~-r the · slgna~Jre of the judge.- -The date of:, ·-.. . . ._\ . . . UnC:~~ .th~ '.:::-cum~ances, f.or the· first poi~t·of-{)r~llminacy---0bjection'--;------~-- .' '/--· m.1r.:..fift'2ii~~r- is\ha_\: thi: decree is -defective and we uphold this point of . ; . .. , ' . -P~.i~ir;ii.'/~_CWeVCl; as:p::>in:ced' out earner, the error is.one which can be .;.•: ~- .·.,;.:":i':.·.'.· r \ .. ~.-;~,\·-·· . .··. . . , . r.eq:lflect fo::- :t~ie,x~rr:a}riin~ oth,er grounds of objection we find that they 17 I lack merit and we dismiss them. We allow the a.':ipe!la~t. tb l1f. an :_ . . :- • '. .. . (I, . ·.·. amended decree under Rule 111 ofthe Court of Appeal R:..:tes 2CXJ3. T!1e , . . . . . ..... -·-.; --~- ;,.·· ::.-: ' ' ·. . . appellant is given fourteen days from the date ,of the. de~vF~' of this rt!ling. -,_ to file an amended . d~cree .. ~inc~ ;~~ppellant.):1ad q_f)r!p1a]'IJ ~;e~pq!l~ibility_ . ' . . .,•, of ensuring that he had proper document-? be(o\-e JRng . t;!1e. ~ppeal, as ' . - i ·. . . : '. . required by Rul~ 96 of the Collrt: Rules but-he~r.esled:etit;id~~ti~rsie that . ' .1· ......- .. , ,- . -.,., ---------·------ - --- -------------- . duty, he has to ~c3_r ~heco~ts. . . .·. . . Qr~er~q_ . . acc~miing~y. - . .~ . .. - DATED at DAR ES SALAAM tl)is iPtday <3fOc:mbe 1~?~ii; ·; ~c-::------,-=------c-:~~~-'-----:------,-------'---,--~-~ ,.. ---·:.:: .. MtC. OTHMJ\.N __ -.-· -~k-. / <;HIEF JUSTl.f£ N. P. ,KJ:M/"RO -

JUSTICE . OF APPE-Ab""..;- ,- -·._-----:-c~-~-'-----:-----:-:+~~--~--- .. S. A. MASSATI. JUSTICE Of APPEAL > I -certify that this is a true _copy of the· cr:g;;pc!\