19991208 TZHC Iringa

I IN THE HIGH COURT . OF TANZANIA AT SONGEA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1998 ORIGINAL IRINGA DISTRICT COURT CIVIL CASE NO, 106 OF 1996 JOSEPH NBWILO ............... APP3LLMTT VERSUS: 1. The N.B.C. 2 • SETI 11010 t/a f z)••,• EPc AUCTION KRT ) 3. BiiN PEREIRA ) J U 1) GN E N T Pj JCL. In the District Court of Iringa at Iringa Joseph Mbwilo, the prant appl1art1 •- 1ie reandents the Seti Moto t/a M5jembe Auction Mart and 3en Preira. It was established in the trial Court that the appellant Joseph Mbwilo got .a loan from the first respondent The ?Tiial Bank of Commerce. The loan was Sh5. 6 1 000 1 000/=. As collateral for the loan, the appellant deposited his title deed for a house situated on Plot G. 336 Towhship. The appellant defaulted when he hd an - -- .ing amount of Shs. 3,200,0007= to pay out of the total loan. This led to the auctioning of the house under mortgage at Sha. 4,600,000/=. house was auctioned i th r-,r,, 'ho is an auctioneer and C;ourt Broker. The third respondent bought the house at u the appellant contended that there was collusion L ;ween the Court broker and the buyer of the house and this led to the hou 3 being sold at a lower price then the valuation Report price. The ial Court discounted - p9W T JOecI TWTTXd UOtM epw ST (L.) oTn ?I 10 .xeptrn squn000p IO; OuTTIP 0 OU ac 0 JptIfl epW 1 e[9s eep JIWTJ7 P TIOTTjM eJrfltl?J e2J0w GTA4 WeOpOJ 04 tieAt1 91 9t[UOW X1G L0 pot.xod V OSTe OJ9H O oJt1$o-toeJOJ JOJ 4Tns V Ut sm (o) pu (q)() Z eir xepun epu eq e.iow oT44 ga O. qrnoD aq4 9leMOcTh1e 09119 (t) 1 alnH JpJQ p1199 JOJ 4Tns ç OTfld 3 0 0 iopun uOt3xfwape.I Jo 4,qSTx etjq 9090 T 109 P9 4JOw et pet;ToecI$ potecI Gqq utt(qIM pt19cl 4OU ST SOUOUJ e19I4JOw aq4 jj 04qap .xoqinj woxj xoxow et; qa3,reT4osTp TtTM eopeio TI 00JD[ 1UJ 19 9$19 EUOW XtG UTL1tM pasieKoeTp ST ases4jow 0T .rc pu JflO3 UI ponpc.zd eq oi. e1iow et o txtp90.x $ewrIoop etj JepJo o; pe.xeModwe 91 O9T19 janoo OtILT. 619) 2 xepJoj pT19d eq o enp 94$00 pu8 490ja4uT trnotue 194eJ3ep auq 1UtuOtWow eeJOea rcWT10IcT pas919d qsjTj qjnoo 4L-Tqq eJfl$OTOGJOJ u 'c PL119 2 $ 0 IflI JCPJO .xepun e.nsoioaioj 9T e519.xow 19 9utJ19to9-tp Jo po;ew ouo G0.IOW wç.x19to$tp wr enpeoo.xd e.eJoq190 InO 909 . JaPTO eapooempeoo.x 1TTD aq4 JO 2 O japun 9fl19J tflG GLI4 9U190U1 GtL '002JOLU 9 ;uepuodo.x 49xtJ auq Y.ue Jo719.xow 912 e ueeMeq row 19 30 qxo 9OStJt2 a Tns aq4 4Uq4 MOT.Is 0AO19 prt[flo $08J oT.j 0MSufl19MW G0tI12 ';t.xew 10191 Ioedd19 et 90W2W GttJ •Ja&nq aql o4 po$912d peq oit. 'trottt19 ue.L UO VT pet 919M oTt?s N4 aOUTS pu19 'prt12.xJ ocx 919M ada-44 4eqq pen.x19 q.uopuod9e.x 4sxcj e ..ioj jesunoo peu.x19e1 'eMItr 19MN 'N ;J12c1 GIL! u •posJaAeJ: eq ;.xnoo J01401 @qq jo quawSpnC atlq quqq po.xd Pue 4 dnO D txq GT44ut epow pnx; jo $uotefl19 atlq pe4edeJ 19MiOMOt!$flW zW wrtedcI aq; joj Tosunoo p01Lx19e1 idcI aq4 9uinDav ueq 1cicI19 stq oouet 1 4anoo 112t'. aqj ;o JutputJ euj iq p0netJ19 $1914 W19TIedcie otj, 'uepuodsei p.rttfl @q4 uO )T4T4 poop V $.IeJUOO L[0TI!M U014 'uoptiodoi pJt74 oj°ot 'opptq qeaqsTTl e; t13PM cit uOt;0n19 edo.id 12 91914 OJ0t c; pec pu12 uot$noe pu$ pn'2.x; jo uoT19efl19 et I -3- The essence of the Preliminary and final Decrees in suit for foreclosur and sale is to give time to the mortgagee to redeem the inortage after default. The time for redemption is six months as shown under 0, 32 Iie 2(c) but the Court is given leeway to extend the time for payment of mortagage money under the Proviso to Order 32 iule 3 (2). It is only after the mortgagor fails to discharge the mortgage jxi the period between the Preliminary and Final Decrees that the mortgagee loses title to his property. The proedirtgB of the -original suit in thu Dis-trict - Ccrt. o Iringa, and the argument of counsel LUirins the haring of this appeal, did not a&Lr.ess the question Qf procadur. oLf descharging mortgaiw.er 0, 32 of the C±ri1 Proedure Code, Instead eviience was led in the trIal Coiurt, aI argwnts were made in the appellate Court, that there was fraud in the sale. Before there can be a sale in a suit based on a moitgag, the correct prQaedure must be seen to have been followed. The trial Court record does not show that the mortgagee i.e. the National Bank of Commerce either foreclosed or applied for sale under der 32. This made the whole proceedings in the trial Court a nullity. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are hereby set aside and the purported sale declered a nullity. The first respondent should follow the procedure set out under O 32 in discharging of the mortagage. The appeal therefore succeeds. As for costs the second and third respondents are innocent by standers in a wrong process initiated by the first respondent so they cannot be condemned to pay costs. The first respondent will therefore be the person to beer the costs of this appeal. Dated this 7th Decemver, 1 999. - W. S0-Mndia PRM. EXI JURISDICTION • _1_ 8/12/99 Coram: Mandia 1 PIN, Ext. Jurisdiction For Appellsnt: Absent, For Respondents: Absent. Order: Judnent read in the absence of the parties this 8th December1999. Pies should be supplied with copies of the jè ..• / I I 'I \ \ / \ lI.S9.-Mndia '- JURISDICTION. WSM/PJL.