20171221 TZHC Dodoma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY AT~DOMA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO 69 OF 2017 1. HON. HALIMA JAMES MDEE } 2. HON. ESTER AMOS BULA YA ................................. APPLICANTS VERSUS THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA & 2 OTHERS ............. RESPONDENTS RULING 14/12/2017 & 21/12/2017. H. H. KALOMBOLA, J. This ruling have come about after this court deliberated on its ruling in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 27 /201 7 wherein an order of dismissal was pronounced. Now the applicants herein have filed this application asking this court to correct an error such that to order striking out instead of dismissing. There has been an objection raised by the respondent that the applicants relied on a wrong provision of law i.e Provision of section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 (R.E. 2002). 1 The respondent strongly svbmitted that the applicant ought to have moved this court under Order 62 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. So this is the gist of the objection while respondent insisted they have found the court reached or ordered the application dismissed after reasoning, the applicants contends this was a slip therefore section 96 is a relevant section. Going by the arguments of both sides this court finds left or right the truth still remains the court pronounced a word dismissal and not strike out a fact which is not disputed by any of the thresholds in this matter. Agreed as it is I find the approach of which to correct this word should not detain us long as this word must be corrected in order to make the applicants fight through to reach their basic right of being heard after their application was found incompetent. Much as I agree the time is out for the applicants to persue for their rights and that the main application was in fact argued on the very date, it is worth now to dispose both the preliminary objection and the main application as the submissions in the preliminary objection and the main application cannot be distinguished. As far as the authorities cited are binding i.e Civil Appeal No. 43/2003, to this court and since hands of the court are not tied to correct the error merely because the application was brought under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and not under Order 62 ( 1) of the Civil Procedure Code as finally and since the court concedes 2 ··• .the error must be corrected; end it will end up been corrected. In -~"'- . order to see that time is not waisted for an end of result which is apparent; the court ,. . in this ruling --• combines both. . . the .. submissions· . . ih ' ' .· ·. Jhe Preliminary objection and the main application, by allowing ·the . mairi dpplicotioh. Consequently an error on its ruling in Miscellaneous Civil application No. 27 /2017 delivered on the 10/7/2017 is hereby corrected. An order of striking c)Ut of the Application is pronounced instead of dismissal, With no· orders as to · · costs. it is so ordered. . ' . . . : --- - - -- - - ---- --~------- ., - ~-:-:_-:-......_·_~--~ _;_, .....,.._:,.._ _,._ --,.•-:---·~---•...,--,.- -,--- -- -- --- ..... - - 3 . ··1