IQRA FM RADIO V BUNDALA MAGANIRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA REVIEW NO. 5466 OF 2024 (Arising from application No. 17/2023 originating from Labour Execution No. 71/2020) IQRA FM RADIO.............................................................................. APPLICANT VERSUS BUNDALA CHRISTOPHER MAGANIRA...................................... RESPONDENT RULING 26/6/2024 & 31/7/2024 ROBERT, J:- This is a ruling on the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent, Bundala Christopher Maganira, against the application for review filed by the Applicant, IQRA FM Radio. The application seeks to challenge the order of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, Mwanza Sub-Registry, dated 26th July 2023, in Labour Execution No. 71 of 2020. By way of background, the Applicant was granted fourteen days' leave to file a written notice of review pursuant to the ruling of this Court in Application No. 17 of 2023, delivered on 26th October 2023. Following the i filing of the application for review, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection on three grounds: 1. That the application is incompetent for being filed out of time. 2. Alternatively, that the application is incompetent for failure to comply with the court order dated 29th February 2024. 3. That the application contravenes Section 84A(3) of the Interpretation of Laws Act, Cap. 1 R.E. 2019, which requires pleadings filed in English to have a corresponding translation in Swahili. At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr. Chiwalo Nchai Samwel, learned counsel, while the Respondent appeared in person, unrepresented. The hearing proceeded by filing written submissions. Submitting on the first and second points of objection, the Respondent argues that the Applicant was granted fourteen days to file the memorandum of review, starting from 29th February 2024. The memorandum was filed on 15th March 2024, which the Respondent asserts is two days beyond the allowed period. The Respondent contends that this delay renders the application incompetent under Sections 3 and 19 of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap 89 R.E. 2019. The Respondent cited several decisions to support the argument that court orders must be respected and complied with 2 including, the case of Marry Joseph v. Rachel Zephania, Misc. Land Application No. 37 of 2020; Zein Mohamed Bahroon v. Reli Assets Holdings Company Ltd (RAHCO), Misc. Land Application No. 307 of 2017; Tanzania Breweries Ltd v. Edson Dhobe and 19 Others, Misc. Civil Application No. 96 of 2000; P3525 Lt Col Idahya Maganga Gregory v. The Judge Advocate General, Appeal No. 04 of 2002. These cases illustrate that courts have dismissed applications for non-compliance with court orders. With regards to the 3rd point of objection on compliance with section 84A(3) of the Interpretation of Laws Act, the Respondent asserts that the application is defective for failing to comply with Section 84A(3) of the Interpretation of Laws Act, Cap. 1 R.E. 2019, which mandates that pleadings filed in English must have a corresponding translation in Swahili. The Respondent referenced the case of Ammany Construction Company Ltd v. Makundo Engineering Company Ltd, Civil Case No. 32/2023, where the High Court struck out a suit for non-compliance with this requirement. In response to the first and second points of objection, the Applicant argues that the fourteen-day period granted by the Court began to run from 1st March 2024, as per Section 19(1) of the Law of Limitation Act. The Applicant maintains that the memorandum of review was filed on 13th March 3 2024 via the electronic case management system (eCMS), and it was admitted by the court. The discrepancy in the date (15th March 2024) on the hard copy was attributed to a human error by the court registry. In response to the third point of objection, the Applicant contends that the mandatory translation requirement has exceptions under the Interpretation of Laws (Use of English in Court Circumstances and Conditions) Rules, 2022, via GN No. 66, where both parties are conversant with English. The Applicant argued that since the proceedings, judgment, and applicable laws were all in English, and both parties are conversant with English, a Swahili translation was unnecessary. The Applicant cited the following cases: Zaid Jumane Zaid v. Pili Rajab Abdallah, Land Appeal No. 9 of 2022; Happiness Dickson v. Wilson Makoye, Matrimonial Appeal No. 07 of 2021. These cases suggest that failure to provide a Kiswahili translation may not be fatal if the parties are conversant with English and the governing laws are in English. Upon reviewing the documents filed, the submissions of the parties, and the eCMS records, the Court notes the following: 4 The Applicant was granted fourteen days from 26th October 2023 to file a written notice of review via Application No. 17 of 2023. He lodge a Notice of Review as ordered. However, since the time to lodge an application for review had already passed the applicant applied for extension of time to file a memorandum of review out of time vide Application No. 22 of 2023. By the ruling delivered on 29th February 2024, the Court granted the Applicant fourteen days from the date of the ruling to file the memorandum of review. Thus, the memorandum of review should have been filed by 14th March 2024. ■J . The records indicate that the memorandum of review was filed on 15th March 2024, which is beyond the prescribed time. The Applicant's argument that the memorandum was filed on 13th March 2024 and the discrepancy on the hard copy date is due to a registry error is not supported by the eCMS records. As a result, the application is time-barred and thus incompetent. Since the first and second grounds of objection are sufficient to dispose of this application, there is no need to address the third point regarding the translation of pleadings. 5 For the reasons stated, the preliminary objection on the grounds of timeliness and compliance with court orders is upheld. The application for review is hereby dismissed for being filed out of time. Costs to be borne by 6