20091211 TZCA Zanzibar2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZA~IA AT ZANZIBAR ZNZ CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2009 I HARUNA OMAR SINGANO ............ .,. .................................... APPLICANT VERSUS 1. MINISTRY OF WATER, CONSTRUCTION, POWER AND LAND (M.U.N.A) 2. FARASHUU MOHAMED ABDULLA.~; .........................•... RESPONDENTS I ' { Application for extension of time from the djision of the · High Court .of Zanzibar I at Vuga) · (Hon. Mr. Khamis Ramadhan Abdalla - RM Extended Jurisdiction) ' Dated 28th day ~f January, 2009 in Civil case no. 13 of 2006 RULING 07.12.2009 & 11.12.2009 MANDIA, J.A.: I I i By Notice of Motion dated 10th February, 2009 and lodged in this Court on the same date, the applicant sought to move this Court I for orders to extend the time for the applicant t~ ''file a Notice of : I Motion and save the same'~ The Notice of Motion is accompanied by 1 th an affidavit affirmed by the applicant on 10 FebrQary, 2009. In the 2 · accompanying affidavit the applicant averred, in paragraph 2 and 3, that he desired to appeal against a decision of the High Court but he could not do so because he had travelled to Tanga to attend to family problems. The applicant therefore seeks to have the time to file his appeal extended. On his part, the first respondent contended that the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable because the affidavit accompanying the Notice of Motion is defective for lack of verification and for containing a prayer. Reacting to the preliminary objection, the applicant contended that the act of raising a preliminary objection is nothing but trickery by Government officials to deny him of his rights. The applicant appeared in person to argue his application, while the firstrespondent was represented by Rajab Abdallah Rajab, a legal officer employed by the first respondent. The second respondent absented himself from the proceedings though he was duly served . . On verification of affidavits, this Court took a position in FOUM vs REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (1995) T.L.R. 75 which appears at page 78 thus: I 3 " ...................To our minds, the legal positidn I I regarding affidavits which are witHout verification or specificaiion of source I of 1 information is crystal cle ar. From case· law, j I numerous cases have been decided by this 1 I I court and the Court of Appeal for Eastern 1 I Africa on this point." / I I As to the effect of the defect, the FOUM case, supd, said this at p. 79:- , 1 1 I I I " .......... We are thus of the settled view! that I. . the learned Chief Justice was ent,itle·6 to dismiss the application rhich was bas+ on the strength of the Affidavit. Accordingly, we 1 dismiss the appeal with dosts." i I I I Likewise since the present application is bas~d on a defective affidavit, the same cannot be mainJained. The chamber application is I I hereby struck out. There will be no order as to costs/. I th DATED at ZANZIBAR this 11 day of December, 2009. i W. S. MANDIA JUSTICE dF APPEAL ' I I I I I ' !