NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 11

f r ·.! IlJ TEE EIGII CGlJ"ii:T OF TAl'1ZAl~II... at D.:i.R E3 SALA.'Jt1 CIVIL APFEAL i:TC' .47 OF 198/J " IIAWA •S.A.1m.1 o o o o o C) o" o o o o o o o a o o. o o o. o o o "o o "coo a .,.~PPELLA1!,r Versus SAIDI SELEI\'1AlIT o o o o o c o o n o o o o e "' o o ., o. o o o o o o o o o o o R.~SPOIIDENT

RULING MNZAVAS J.Ko In this appeal W.ir. lipiki 9 loarnud counsel o.P tl!o rcsponclcmt, ' opposed the appeal. on a prelir.1in"'.'.ry point that it we.s not properly before the court as Ghe :;1oooranc1v.m of appoal is not accompcinied by copy of decrqe appealed =igainst., In support of t~1is [l.rguDont the learned· counsel refe:.:-:rod the court to OR 39 Rl of tho Civil Proced~ . Cod.e and 0R.4c·. R 2 of tl10 Code. The· decisions .. 0 in S'I'A1IT.,Y I,'L'.'1.RIKI_.Y.5 1IDEB1~~~r (19/JlL TLR 143 and IC01I!J( VS KOO VEBJI (196i) ·E~A•o 34.i:• .,wero ··al~~o c;,.i.otted., -Mr •. LipiJp: asked. :the -9ot!I't to disrai::is ·the a::,rJal~ In rebuttal Mro Rab.Lu argued tll2-t tho onission to acconpany copy o: decree was more of a clerical error them substn.ntiV'o. wistake., .He arguecl th.'-"Lt the ·omssion coulcl be taken care ·of b;y -t~:..0 provisions. /.·· of sectio:n 95 of the Civil P:eocedure Codeo .With respect to nr. lbllj11 1s sub~ission I l)elievc ho was not· serious -when he said t'hat lack. of copy of decree accorap;:uzy:i:ng a · · memora.nclur,i of appeal in al1 ,1})1.10al is a mere clerical error., court' and "cl1,0 .J)urt of Appec:-,1 Md there is 2.l1 vn1Jroken chain of autho·i'+ ty _.that the provisionD o:i:' OR.39 Rl. of the Civil Procedure· Code ·e.:re qc.nd.atoryo. Apart froD the two decisions quotted by the .- learned counsel. for the responde;xi; there is also

tJ.;.e decision ' ,· by this Court in TAJDIN V '..Che Now Great Ins, CowP9:l:J,.Y LTD '1261}~il-<P~-:-:ftS ,.- where i,G was held that: ••.•• /2 .1 .. ·;• c.,.;~• 2 11 0R 39 Rl of the Civil Procedure Code j p1:cvirtes tha.t a memorandum of appeal shall be accoopaniod by copy of-the decree _appealed from" and that· rule is ir:iporative~" The appeal was dismissedo The position is exactly t;1e sarae in the present appealo Section 95 of the Civil· Procedure Cod0 has· _no relevance vihats0wer in this case. The preliminary objection is upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissod as incompetento T'.u.o responclent to have his costs. - ~l,~~~ N.So Mn~s JAJI KION~OZio