19950818 TZHC Dar es Salaam

rJO n1 TTIE man COURT OF T.1.NZ.\NIA • . AT TABORA CIV'"..LL GASE NO. 8 .. OF 19~ JOSEF.IT~- W,4TLii1lNYtll. ......... u u U • DO O . . . . PLAINTIFF VERSUS I&~.ua.n. J,i~,.Jl.TKAHii. t C . . . . . . . . . , • • • ., " · · ~ · · · . . . DEFEND.:lliT • RULING JPBJEC'h .Ai:~plic2..tion fer llo-institlltion of Civil Case No" 8 of 1990 out of' t:L.,o., On tl~u 28/2/1990, th(_; a1,~1licant JOSEPII I{., Will1L,.1..lNYvfL.§ tl1roug.:.1 a Tabora basod l~ct..rcoato la·k .,ru E\ W·i;a1)e-v··u 9 ~~ilocl a suit a_;ainst tho Chairi1an of A.GJJAI~_:.U TTI,J.PL:S., I:o wn.s cla:L... inc; S1 ·.s .. 336, 620/=, tb.at inclL;_dod rE-pairinc costs of ·c1•r0 R:.'.~-::: cc,ss:,;tt'"'s, two nc:fricira;tiorsy and loss o-Z business profits fro;..1 sale of soft drLi:.:s, ro::;L;_.l·i;ant frow norr-uso of tho throe reg:ri 6.rirators, fmow 7/11/1989 till 7/12/1989, ancl Shs.2,000/= por claJr fro.1..1 7/12/1989, until final peyii,cn-t, du __ to non-:-uso of a Coca Cola rofrigirator, following the druuat10 of t~:o [l.'.:-ovo 1.1onticno;.1 ar,plian.cos, by branches of tl'cus, that foll on clcct:ric wires comwctcd thoroto, after lJoing negligently cu·!;, by tho rospo--:, ndonts work.c1Qi1., · Tho rosponclcnts dou1urred, d.o;riocl ovvxy bit of clai."1, and further, sousllt furt!lcr .:i..'1J. ::;ottQr ~)articula:c·s, i:1 their wti tton statciiicnt of def once, filed in ti.1.10, anJ. rocoivo:.l by the .J.pplicants Advocate, on tho 2/4/19<x:J• 1,1r,. Kw:i.ki.i.Ja a:._)poa.1"'in0 f\·,r _t~10 :ros:~om1mt, on the 19/5/19<JJ, rc.i1indod tho Court of furthor and bo-ctor pa.rtioclal'S, sou2:J.it, and again so did, on tho 26/5/1990• On tho 19/10/199@, 1,a. Kwiki,,1a applied before (Chipota, J~), to have the suit cliSL1issod undo:r ORDER :xr Rv.lu 18 of tho Civil P:roocdt.1.re: Code 1966, hcroaftor to ho callod. tJ.'.c C·:;c.,:1, :for failure to sv.pply suoh particulars as Mr. NtalJn.yo, ·s-truzelod a:f1,lyin:.:-; for c.::;.~tcnsion of tL.10, w:i.. thin 'Which, to furnis!: sucl::. furtlwr a.11a. bottcr particulars, as ncdossa.ry docu.:,wnts, wore in limanza t.diorc the plaintiff lla,1 obtained. tllc spare parts. In a ruling dolivor0c.~ on tho 35/10/1990 t2:7 0 IIie,h Court dis.,~issod tho suit) for want of prosoct).ticn, On tl:.o 19/2/19SU, the a,::,plicant filed this application for rdnsti tu.tion of tho Civil Caso, under Section 14( 1) of tho Law of Liud tation, and Section 95 of the; Civil ProccdJ."!.re Code 1966. - 2 - The above application, was prosecuted by the applicant hiuiself, who had sworn an o.:ffidavi t 1 iu1puti115 t!.10 failuro of his case 3 on his advocate, sa;rine Lo was tJ.1on of ill~huaJ. th, without wLl.ch b.o would have furnishe~ further and bettor particulars. This applicant sought, the reinstateuHmt of' tho suit-l' T!.1is a:pplication, was resisted by lv.ir. Kwild..m.a, -who subw.i ~ tod that it was t:i.i.10 llarrua.._ With respect to -ooth parties, there seaiis to bo so110 confusion, as to what tJ:.1.is npplioat.io11 is ab0t1t, ar.d such CO!'lbUsion uiust be cleared fiI's"t• F:i.J:'st, it is :rd-.:; J::.e:ro for roviow, as would call for, tho appli-:- cation of :;:.i:rovisions of ORDER XLII of the podo 1966. Socond 3 the suit was clis".issod. f o:r wan-c of ~;rosucu.tion, prLtf-'ortedly under ORDER XI Rule 18 of tho CoC:~u,. I:Z' I i.la,.;' ocsc.:rvo non pr.:rtisanly, it is iifY view, a wodest one, tta.t rul :J 18, is a :,i.::(.:ly J_)o~1al provision, and it 'WOUld SOo.i,l to iue, that condi ti0ns p:i:'o-l'oc.r~1izi'to, to its applicatim1, umst clon.rly and unequivo- ceJ.ly bo ft::Ji'illedj before a pa.:rty can bo penalised u.nclor it. That is, tl::.o strL1::;c:i.1~0 p:;;ovisic,ns of R..,lo 18, s::10t1J.d bo appliocl, only in extreme cases~ who::·o 0Js-ti:::1ac;r.9 or con-cL1.::,acy, on the part of tho })arty involvoa., or wilfLu at~;;,_.ip-~ to <J.is::-cga.T:°l -~.'.10 order of the Court, is ostablishocl, and • as tho ai:•plicn.tion is not before illG for r0viGw, it is not opportune for iile to put t:ae: circL~.. stc-r1ccs, in a cruoibl0 tont, to seo, whetl1er its condi1iions wero satisfioc'l.. I sup110s0, ~:i..01°0 it is uot the question o:f having t:Lu.orous soul, or· 1)old. spi:rits,v l)ut th8 question of procoduro, anr1 legal competence so t.:, du,. Thirc'--, it ·would sofai to '"rn t21at re3,cli.ng ORDEH. ID: 2 Rulo 18 tot3.er tl~or o:a.DER XL fof the Code? ca:;_•ofuJ.ly the re..,ocJ,y only lios? in appeaJ.ing, as to do so is cnablecl by ORDJl:D. XL Rulo ( 1) of the Codo 9 as the roinsti tu- tion of the suit subject to tl:..o law of Li,uitation, is not conto.uiplated ·;_ thoro, as i·c ie, in Rule (4) OHDEH. IX 2 or Rulo (5) 2 ORDER 1.'VII of tho Code• But witl: 1·espcct, if tLo applicants failure, was to supply further and· botto.1' ~)8.I'tio:.D..a:rs, as orclorud 1;y tho Court, whether Rule 18 ORDER JII of the Cor.lo1 is am::licablc~ is a hl.ll'dle, I have to clear first. It is my very huu1blo view, that? fL'trthor and better particulars, arc sought at the pleaclinGs sta.;o, obviously u.nclor ORDER VI RULE 5 of tho Code, and not unclcr ORDER XI of tlw C:)clo, Jchat deals w.i. th discovoryj and inspection,. lih:i,le a discovo1",y o;r•do;, mey be g:i. van rJefore an order for better particulars, and vice ve:rsa1 wb.icL should bo which, and when, will dopei1el on tho· ·circUfilstar- ncos of each c~.so 9 and Low :rnaso.na~:-ly c:zercis0cl is the discrution by tho 0 Court a;ftc.;r Ca,j'.'GI ully cxam.n:i.ng tho facts• Tho above, does su.rfico to snow, how tb.o two OBJ)FJlli and ru.los, diffoJ.' and operate procec1v.raJJ.y di.ff erently. - 3 Scoril1g tho :i.Llporta.'100, of sui.:,r1ying of furtl1Gr, and bettor pa.rtioU-:- lars, I havo t2.iis to obsoi!;'Ve.., Tl.10J:o is no doubt at 2J.l, that tho requir°"." rucnt, of full and bottor j_)articl'J.ars, has to be cofilpliod with, with suff:i.- ciont fullness, anc"'.. dotails:i and necossary clarifications, so as to enable tho other party, to iliuot tha.·:1 fairly, and without any ela10nt of surprise, and this fu.rthor serves, tho trial to follow on heels, frOiil turning into a .rui.ilblin,::;, and roving i:aguisitio:.1. On !10els tlwrefore, is a legally fasc~ ting question, as to wLat is tho legal off cot of tho plain-i;iffs failuro, to supply, fur-lil1er and bettor particula.rso It woul_d seoi,l to ao, tbat al though ORDER VI_ lli1.lo 5 of' tho Coe.lo .wal;:os no ,.jmtion of -U10 loc,al consoqucncos, e.-.1anatinc; from tho partfos failu.ro to sup1,l.Y, further and. 1Jettor particulars, • apart fro.-.1 circua1sta.ncos cov'--'1~od. l:iy Rulo ,16 of the sai;,e ORDER.9 the following .' n options, aro open to tl"lG Court~- (i) The suit L1ay be diBi,iissod, if the plaintiff is fa clef a;ul ttt (ii) Tho def once iit,\Y bo struck out, if tho dej'cnda.nt is in dofaul t. (iii) If, the further and better pa1'ticulars9 ordoroa, ... facts consti tllting the cause of arc not the sole action, for tl::.o sllit 3 or constituting the sole c.o def\~i1c0, the whole mi t need not be disinissecl~ 01' ;the whol0 def' enco need not be struck out. llie reuia:i.11ing facts constitutive of the cause of action, and clef enco cah still be tried. Since in this caso, tho particulars sougllt, but Ltn-obtai.nod, f'on,ied tho foundantion of tl:2 causo of acticn, tl,.o:re was no wey tho suit could be severed to pn.rtl,y sm"Vi ve, it had to be disi,iissea, under tl:.:.is ORDER9 rather than under ORDER XI Rulo 18 of the Cocle. l..s above ::,ui1r~Gcl, out the sLri. t w.:::,s stru.ck out for want of prosecution under ORDER ZI RJ.le ,8 of to Codo1 ;J;f reservations about the applicability of which, is abovo cm record., JJuJi; tl1e applicant, is applying for ro-insti- tu tion of t."10 sui ·c, an aprlic0:~i on tL.at, that 1'.tr.. Kwild.1:1a for tho resporu.lent soriously rocis-coC: as thio ·:~D,l"J:.'oc.1. AssLu.iing tll<:: rule is applicable, read·:- ing, tho sa..:c iii·c:-: 02.illER XL Rulo 1 (a) (f) of th0 Codo9 tl.l0 c.pplica.nt' s t rauec\y law in a:,rcaJ.inc f:rc,,! Guch orclo:.:-, and that ho has not app0alod, .;:1, since the cLn.tG of ·::L0 orclor 25/10/19f:JJ, tl:..o an,licant !.:.as l"i .. iself alo!le r ' - .. I:f the slti. t, is diamissa,ble under ORDER VI Rule 5 of tho Code, as I have a 1...1ovo ~wdostly, pointed out, it was 1 egally po ssi bl o 9 it is tritely to be observu(J-, -~:lat nei thor tho said rule 5, nor any othor rule in tha.t ORDER, proviclo for the applicai:.ts o::-tioni to roinstituto the suit• It ii.iay be posoLl fli..t'posd'ully wllothor, ~;ive.."1 t:~:1t the: apr,e2J. is out of qu.ostion, the applicant is still :!elr;lcss.., I havE": deciclecl to ortionally tread tho issueo Cno, if' tl-:o c1)I)lioo.tion wo:ro_ inte.nclod to sot:J.sidc the suit diSalli&- sal order, w~1id:.. was Lot, anc: i-t was net n suit c1isrniss2J. ord.or axJYWa;f, and tl10 blo..i:1.l:et provision of pa::.'a ~1 P3Xt III of tho First Schedule to tho Law of Li,:1i·~atio~, that f).:.rns t:~e periorl of Liilii tation as sixty day were ap::,lica1Jlo, tl10 arplicant:i wm:.lcl be tii.1e barred, considering that the suit would have boon d.iswissed on 25/10/<JJ, and the application was filed 114 :days aftox,. The applicaat sought tho assistance of section 14 ( 1) of the Law of • L:wi tat:i.bn Act to Lave tho thrn, cxtondocl for the application, reason being tho unti.;1oly death, of ~1is Ac1.vocato l,J.I'o Ntabaye. It cannot be denied, that 'w.llo:ar,plioa.."lts Aclvucate Hr~ Ntabaye ,;wt, an unti,i1cly death. lind it~~s is equally u_nc:odable that SLloh death, ,~iigllt 1:;,a,ve beon preceded by ill--:- :.ieal t1~ JL:t 81.Ich ill-heal tl:., was known to the applicant, I should i..aagine, that'better 1-Jisc'c0,,1, wouJ_d have counselled enga,ce.iient of a different advo- cate, but tl:o applicant J.ic~ not.. Tho suit was struck out on t..lic 25/10/1990, after hr. r:·co..ta;ro ~12.,,l w1sllcccss:fulJ..y applicrl for extention of tL.1e, so 1t4at it is no-:; truo, to say t~.,ci:c lvb:'• Ntabaye 1 s ill-health w~s behind all this,. vll.:ile -:;:10 suit wG.s st1° . .wkout on 25/10/1990, 11.tr• Ntabaye died on the 15/12/1990, ~1'3:t tho ap:~licant was doing since the striking out of the au.it, 9-c:d. t"ce ~:oat~:. o-.2 i,1r. Htabeye wi t~.·-out botherinc about his case, is his ow.a tori s~c:;_,E:,t:- ru1d what :'.le was doing thereafter till 19/2/1991, when he file,(:. -this applice.tion, sleep:i.nc; on l1is casoj is yet another guarded secret of t_u iJ.;))lican t., '· Wit~1 rosp0ct tc tl:.o npplico.nt, p:.'ocrastination, tho -bl1ief of ti.,,e, havi;.'lf:,· bGe:1 wis0i', and sfolcr. h!Ls ti.i.10, and could not ..1ako application in ti,.10 1 1:11:1.:~ l::.mco ::if.:\ 1)eing ti..ie lJa,rrol, s:::i to speak? tho provisions of SectiOl'i -14 {1) of tl:o Law of L17.1ito;cion, as :ri2,'l1Uy cit cl: l:)y hi.la? have to apply~ -UnC.el' iLc rrovisions of S,2:ctio.i.'l 14(1) of tho Law of Lii:aitation, it ' is t'.:le eGtalJl-iS:.:r..,ont, of "►reasc:1a:JLJ o:r sufficient cause", why the application w2.s no·c ;..1ado wi t: ..L:: th,c statut:.::ry thw, that :;i ves the Court juriscl{ctibn to o.,cl..,i t tLo application, not 1ri.i. thata.nilil:lf:, tho lapse of the· stF.!.tut:)J:'Y peri0cl~ for -!210 ap::,lication" Tho inevitable qtwstion is, wb.ethe.r the said applica;l·:: 5 ~:as s.'-.c1'm ttreason,-:i,~:le, or su.ffici c.n t cause", as to be entitlu½ to t.1.1~ c;r.:,ceful LKll,lc;'ence, of the pl',,visions of Section 14(1) ,.,.,,.\ tl'l.1 ,~acl)t; ,:_,;a,,r,,u.n!l, ~..o,~11iiOi'l/bC1J~ a,1;.:,,vo, t fJl:,1,\,\d,~11,1 ·bo N'°•JIWOI' tll.,~ ···p:-~g .. .,.~ •a...• "~~y,{~ . ·;. positively,. L.:lilii;er,.cel' unc.:.:plainablo dela,1s 9 wavol'in:::,· etc, b.ave been· .,•·• ·4,:, el!l't the ap11licants chai•acteristics, il'1 the ,.:atter 1 which is a travesty, to ' "°,: ~~ -~~ <it .; the above re",_,sons 9 tl1at no roasona1Jle o:;; suf:Zioier~t cauGo has been show, the application wouJ.cl be c1i&,1issccl wit:1 costs., Seco:.l~ filini,;· a f:res:~ suit, is also not witb.out hurdles at all. The rocapituls,t;i.,Q);t·cf tr:,_~. _f3,c~·~-R~ lli.~ .. ca~~;. shqws . ·--- .....;_:..-· . tt~~, tl1q app;J-icant was plaint took place on tte 7/11/1909,. .t..ccorclir;g to sections (6) (e) and (4) of the Law o:2 LiL\i te.tion_, the accrt.l¥ of right of... action, in a suit for . cowpe11satio11, for· a wron,-;ful ac-~, acrues on the date, when the injury· results such wrong., In the 0,p1,licants casej the rig]::t of action acrued . on tl1e 7/11/1cJ39, and. :Jogan runnil.1[; as frow then. It would sec..1 to follow.~ t.."1.o.t the cd.Suiiso~ of the suit, for want -'.)f prosecution under rule· ( 18) ( \ ~bove c. coulC:L not char.go the acrual · date of' tl:.e cause of action, and when > re-insti tL1tio21 of tho suit is soufjlt? for pur,1:,oses of co..:1putation of liilli tation periocl_, such is tJ:w starting date.. Since· thq su.i t., is for co- cofilpensation of property wro~'.lf,i'ully daw.agod.9 nnd resultant loss of bus:i:-' noss p:rofi t, ·!:;,,'1e li.wi t:i.tion pe.ricc~ is_ one ;y'ear'J and since sUi t would cowe 15 wonths, oft0r the acrual of cause of acifon 1 he would obviously be time barred., axd ;:.,o ol)ject of di&iissal under Section (3) of the Law of Lii:iita- i;_ion 1971 - :for lJei11g ins-ti tixtecl after the period of li,..i tation. · .lJ.l i:.:, ~1 -t::ceref or~ t::,,0. applicahts of.forts fail, -and t11.e application · ,-~ is dis,.:iissec: ~r.i.-tl1 costs"' J"":JTIG E Delivorec.1. L1 -tl:e .a~Jsec1ce of the p:1:rties this 1~th cl?.,y a[ .August, 1995. P,.l:l,, KEI'fl1E, .AG'1 JJIS'..C1RICS:1 REGIS 1l1R.:...R :n.:..BORal .P.. li.i... ~'11E, AG o DI STBI G"l1 RED I STRAB. TABJRA