PDFTCMSourceo0l x

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED TREPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. COMMERCIAL APPLICATION NO. 2246 OF 2024 (Arising from Commercial Case No. 35/2021) JSSC COMPANY LIMITED..........................................................1st APPLICANT ANDREW JOHN CHENGE........... ADAM SHABAN SALEHE............ MADUHU SANGUDI KITALIMA................................................... 4th APPLICANT VERSUS SUMA JKT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED..................... 1st RESPONDENT CRDB BANK PLC...................................................................... 2nd RESPONDENT THE HON.ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................NECESSARY PARTY RULING Date of last Order: 08/05/2024 Date of Ruling: 06/08/2024 GONZI, J. The Applicant filed the present application under Rule 75 of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules GN No.250 of 2012 and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code CAP 33 (R.E 2019). They prayed for orders that: i 1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to allow amendments by rectifying the errors arising from the consent Judgment and Consent Decree issued in Commercial Case No.35 of2021 dated 2&h July2022 to enable the issued Judgment and Consent Decree be executable against the 1st Respondent. 2. That each party bears its own costs to this application; and 3. Any other order that this Honourable Court deems fit to grant. The Application was supported by an affidavit of Mr. Sylivatus Sylivanus Mayenga, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Mayenga stated that on 15th March 2021, the 2nd Respondent filed Commercial Case No.35 of 2021 against the Applicants jointly and severally for payment of TZS 651,970,332.22, interest at the rate of 23% per annum from the date the sum was due to the date of Judgment, interest on the decretal sum at the Court rate of 12% per annum from the date of Judgment to its full satisfaction and costs of the suit. Mr. Mayenga stated that the suit emanated from credit facility letter dated 22nd July 2019 extended by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Applicant in the form of term loan of TZS. 681,000,000/= which was made available for 2 the Applicant. He stated that the Applicants duly filed their Written Statement of Defence on 27th April 2021. The same were attached as Annexture JSSC 1. The 1st Applicant successfully applied for leave to present Third party Notice against the 1st Respondent. On 27th November 2021 the 1st Applicant filed the Third-Party Notice (annexture JSSC 2). In the Third-Party Notice, the 1st Applicant stated that the nature of the claim by the 1st Applicant against the 1st Respondent arose out of a contract that the 1st Applicant had with National Service Construction Department (now known as SUMA JKT Construction Company Limited) on 26th June 2019 in relation to the proposed construction of Kwala Dry Port for Tanzania Ports Authority at Vigwaza Ruvu, Coast Region. That there were two agreements, with the first one for supply of different types of aggregates not less than 200,000 cubic meters and the second contract was for supply of not less than 250,000 bags of cement. Mr. Mayenga stated in his affidavit further that after filing the 3rd Party Notice, parties entered into settlement agreements whereby the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent entered into a Deed of Settlement on 20th April 2022 that was filed in Court and a consent settlement order was pronounced thereon making the 1st Respondent indebted to the 1st Applicant for TZS 362,664,000/=. Also, on 28th July 2022 the 1st Applicant and the 2nd 3 Respondent entered into a Settlement Agreement that was filed in Court a consent decree thereon was pronounced by the Court. Mr. Mayenga, stated that despite the settlement agreements entered, the 1st Respondent failed to honour the terms of the settlement agreement which is now a consent decree and therefore the same is ripe for execution. The applicant attached as annexture JSSC 4 copies of the deeds of settlement and letters of reminders to the 1st Respondent which have remained unattended to. He added that in the Consent Judgment and Decree of 28th July, 2022, the Presiding Judge inadvertently left out the terms of the 20th April Settlement Agreement, while the filing of the two deeds of settlement aimed at issuing a consent Judgment and Decree by incorporating all terms contained in both deeds of settlement. The anomaly in the High Court order, has caused the Consent Judgment and Decree issued on 28th July, 2022 not to contain the terms agreed between the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent under the Settlement Agreement of 20th April, 2022 hence causing difficulties in execution against the 1st Respondent thereby making the Consent Judgment and Decree non-executable. Mr. Mayenga deponed that as an experienced Advocate, he is of the view that the error on the part of the Hon. Judge in making the Order in 4 Consent Judgment and Decree of 28th July 2022 was due to accidental slip of the pen and thus amenable for amendment without causing injustice or prejudice to the Respondents. By way of counter affidavit sworn by Mr. Ibrahim Moses Kibanda, Advocate for the 2 Respondent, the Application was resisted. The 2nd Respondent stated that he was not a party to the contracts between the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent. He stated that there is no anomaly in consent Judgment and Decree as the same only acknowledges that the 1st Applicant is indebted to 2nd Respondent and that the 1st Applicant agreed to service the payment of money as per the terms of the settlement deed filed on 27th July 2022. The 2nd Respondent stated that if the application is granted, it will prejudice the 2nd Respondent as the Applicants have failed to honour the terms of the Consent Judgment and Consent Decree. With leave of the Court, hearing of the application proceeded by way of written submissions. Mr. Sylvamus S. Mayenga, learned Advocate, represented the Applicants. Mr. Ibrahim Kibanda, learned Advocate, represented the 2nd Respondent. The 1st and 3rd Respondents opted not to file counter affidavit. Likewise, they did not file submissions. 5 Mr. Mayenga, learned Advocate, submitted that under Rule 75 of the High Court (Commercial Division) Procedure Rules, GN 250 of 2012 and section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, CAP 33 (R.E 2019) this Court has discretion to correct accidental slips or omissions made by a Judicial Officer in Judgments and Decrees at any time. He cited Mulla, the Civil Procedure Code, 16th Edition, Volume 1 where the learned author stated that there are two conditions for rectification of the judgments and decrees to be done. These are: i) Under inherent powers, when the decree or order does not correctly state what the Court actually decided and intended; and ii) Where there has been a clerical or arithmetical mistake, or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission. Mr. Mayenga submitted that the proceedings of this case show that there were two deeds of settlement executed by the parties, and therefore, the consent Judgment and Court decree of 28th July, 2022 was required to reflect all the terms incorporated in both deeds of settlement. He argued that it was not the intention of the parties nor of the Court that one settlement agreement be excluded, namely the 1st settlement Agreement 6 between the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent. He again, quoted Mulla, The Civil Procedure Code, at page 1448 where section 152 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure which is in pari material with Rule 75 of the Commercial Court Rules, was interpreted that: "On a second thought, the Court may find that it has committed a mistake in passing an order in certain terms, but every such mistake does not permit its rectification in the exercise of the Court's inherent powers, as contained under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be confined to something that was initially intended but was left out or added, against such intention." Mr. Mayenga, learned Advocate, submitted that in William Getari Kegege vs Equity Bank & Another (Civil Application 24 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 185 (7 May 2021), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that: "If we are pressed to cite an authority on the slip rule under section 96 of the CPC, our decision in Jewels & Antiques (T) Ltd v. National Shipping Agencies Co Ltd [1994] immediately comes to our mind. In that 7 case, we said the "slip rule" under section 96 of the CPC is applied to correct clerical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions by officers of the Court in judgments, decrees or orders. As the High Court held in VIP Engineering & Marketing Limited v. Societe Generate De Surveillance (S.A) & Another, Commercial Case No 16 of 2000 (unreported) to which we subscribe as depicting the correct position of the law in ourjurisdiction, that "a litigant should not be allowed to suffer through the mistake of an officer of the Court connected with the administration ofjustice and that Courts have a duty to ensure that Court records are true and that they representan accurate record of the proceedings." Mr. Mayenga, learned Counsel, submitted that the intention of all the parties to the case was expressed when they appeared before Hon. Magoiga,! The parties expressed their intention to enter into settlement of the case and the Honourable Judge directed that the 1st Applicant should enter into a Deed of Settlement with the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent should enter into deed of settlement with the 1st Applicant as per the parties' claims and that the two deeds of settlement be filed in Court to be recorded as Consent Judgment. He argued that pursuant to the Order of the Court, the parties entered into the two Settlement Agreements 8 whereby on 20th April 2022 the 1st applicant and 1st Respondent entered into a deed of settlement by which the 1st respondent accepted to be indebted to the 1st Applicant for TZS. 362,664,000/= and the same was recorded as a consent decree. The argued that on 28th July 2022, the 1st Applicant and the 2nd Respondent also entered into a Deed of Settlement by which the 1st Applicant accepted to be indebted to the 2nd Respondent for TZS 545,664,000/=. He submitted that, however, in the Consent Judgment and decree issued by Hon. Maruma,J., on 28th July 2022, inadvertently, did not incorporate the terms of the earlier issued Consent Order with respect to the Deed of Settlement between the 1st Applicant and the 2nd Respondent (SUMA JKT). He concluded that, the inadvertency, renders the earlier Deed of Settlement unenforceable. He prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to rectify its Consent Judgment of 28th July 2022 to reflect the terms of both deeds of settlement and consent settlement Orders. Mr. Ibrahim Kibanda, learned Advocate for the 2nd Respondent, replied in his submissions that since the 2nd Respondent was not a party to the Deed of Settlement between the 1st Applicant and the 1st respondent, therefore the said deed of settlement cannot impose binding obligations and duties 9 enforceable against the 2nd respondent as all the burdens thereon fall squarely upon the 1st respondent. Mr. Kibanda, learned Advocate, submitted that as the 1st Applicant is aggrieved by the consent judgment of 28th July 2022, the remedy available is to apply for review or file an appeal. He relied on the case of Arusha Planters and Traders Limited and 2 Others versus Euroafrican Bank (T) Limited, Civil Appeal No.78/2001 for this position. Mr. Kibanda, learned Advocate, submitted that in the present case, the error is not clerical or arithmetic as Hon. Maruma,J., ordered the replacement of the previous deed of settlement with a new deed of settlement. He argued that such a directive does not constitute a minor slip or omission, rather it is evident that the Judge's intention was clear. He therefore distinguished the cases cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Kibanda, learned Advocate, submitted that the role of the presiding Judge is to record the terms agreed upon by the involved parties in the Deed of Settlement. He relied on the case of Karata Ernest D.O & Others versus the Attorney General (Civil Appeal No.73 of 2014). He prayed for dismissal of the present Application with costs. io Mr. Mayenga, learned Advocate, submitted in rejoinder to what Mr. Kibanda, learned Advocate submitted. He argued that in this case, the 1st Respondent is not challenging this application which relates to the Settlement Agreement between the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent only to which the 2nd Respondent was not a party. He argued also that the 2nd Respondent is not challenging the terms of the deed of settlement between the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent. He submitted that the Applicants, also, are not challenging either of the two Consent Judgments and Decrees. What the Applicants are seeking is the incorporation of the terms of the Deed of Settlement between the 1st Applicant and the 1st Respondent in the Consent Judgment and Decree in order to bring the actual and intended meaning of the settlement agreement as it was ordered by Hon. Magoiga,J., when he directed the parties to file two separate Deeds of Settlement. Mr. Mayenga, distinguished the cases relied upon by the 2nd Respondent in that they presuppose that the party seeking review or appeal against a consent Judgment is aggrieved on grounds of fraud and the like. He submitted that in the present case, the Applicants are not aggrieved by the consent Judgment and Decree. ii On the 2nd Respondent suffering prejudice, Mr. Mayenga, Learned Advocate, submitted that this application does not seek to impose obligations of the 1st Respondent upon the 2nd Respondent, rather it seeks harmonization of the of the two deeds of settlement separately entered into by the parties so as to make the deed of settlement between the 1st Respondent and the 1st Applicant, executable. He reiterated his prayers. After going through the submissions by the learned counsel for both sides and the record of the Court, I find that in essence the controversy between them emanates from the implications of the law. on Third party Procedure under Order I rules 14 to 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. Initially, when Commercial Case No.35 of 2021 started, the 2nd Respondent (CRDB Bank PLC) was the Plaintiff and the Applicants herein were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants accordingly. The 1st Respondent (SUMA JKT CONSTRUCTION CO.LTD) was the 3rd Party and the 3rd Respondent herein, the Hon. Attorney General was joined as a Necessary Party. In essence there were two separate cases capable of carrying two separate Judgments and Decrees enforceable separately. The first was the case of the Plaintiff (herein the 2nd Respondent) against the Defendants (herein the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants). The second case was that of the 1st Defendant in Commercial 12 Case No.35/2021 (herein the 1st Applicant) against the Third Party (herein the 1st Respondent). The two cases were founded on different causes of action based of different contractual relationships. As the circumstances of the two cases attracted Third Party Procedure, this Court (as per Hon. Magoiga,!,) allowed the 1st Applicant herein to present Third Party Notice against the 1st Respondent herein, hence resulting into one composite case with two different claimants and two different Defendants; that is the Plaintiff as against the Defendants and the Defendants as against the Third Party. When the parties intimated their desire to settle their case out of Court, Hon. Magoiga,!, directed that two separate deeds of settlement be presented so as to reflect the terms of the Settlement as between the Plaintiff against the Defendants and the terms of settlement as between the Defendant against the Third Party. The first Deed of settlement to be filed was the one relating to the Third-Party Claims which was filed in Court on 20th April 2022 between the 1st Applicant herein (who was the 1st defendant) and the First Respondent herein (who was the Third Party.) The 1st Applicant herein was entitled to TZS 362,664,000. The Court duly pronounced a consent settlement Order thereon. The second Deed of Settlement to be filed was the one between the 2nd Respondent (who was the Plaintiff) and 13 the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Applicants (who were the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants). The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants accepted liability towards the Plaintiff for TZS. 545,664,000/=. A consent settlement Order was entered to that effect as well. Essentially, the two Deeds of settlement and the two consent settlement Orders culminated into two Judgments by consent and therefrom two Consent Decrees were due. However, by advertence, this Court (Hon.Maruma,J.,) issued Judgment by Consent and Consent Decree containing only the terms of the second Deed of Settlement thereby leading to the parties to take it as if the earlier registered deed of settlement (relating to the Third Party Claims) had been superseded by the later Deed of settlement (relating to the substantive claim of the Plaintiff as against the Defendants). It is that confusion that has brought the Applicants back to Court to imploring it rectify its Judgment by Consent and Consent Decree so as to harmonize the two deeds of Settlement filed separately so that the final Judgment and decree contain orders emanating from the terms of both deeds of settlement. The 2nd Respondent herein has taken issues with that application on the understanding that the Applicants are now attempting to impose upon the 2nd respondent the terms of their Deed of Settlement which the 1st Applicant had agreed with the 1st Respondent only. 14 In short, the 2nd Respondent does not wish to have a single Judgment and Decree containing the terms of both the substantive suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as well as the Third-party claim of the Defendants and the Third Party. The reason advanced, is that such a combination would impose obligations of the 1st Respondent (formerly Third Party) upon the 2nd Respondent (formerly the Plaintiff). This is the gist of contention to which some procedural issues are added on competency of the Court to rectify the Judgment and Decree at hand. I will start with competency of the Court to handle the application as that is a jurisdictional issue over which a Court of law should always satisfy itself at the very outset. The application was filed under Rule 75 of the Commercial Court Rules and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 96 provides that: "96. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either ofits own motion or on the application of any of the parties." Rule 75 of the Commercial Court Rules provides that: 15 "The clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, ruling, decrees or orders, or errors, arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or upon request of any of the parties." The powers of the Court in the above identical provisions of the law were elaborated in William Getari Kegege vs Equity Bank & Another (Civil Application 24 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 185 (7 May 2021), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that: "If we are pressed to cite an authority on the slip rule under section 96 of the CPC, our decision in Jewels & Antiques (T) Ltd v. National Shipping Agencies Co Ltd [1994] immediately comes to our mind. In that case, we said the "slip rule" under section 96 of the CPC is applied to correct clerical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions by officers of the Court in judgments, decrees or orders. As the High Court held in VIP Engineering & Marketing Limited v. Societe Generate De Surveillance (S.A) & Another, Commercial Case No 16 of 2000 (unreported) to which we subscribe as depicting the correct position of the law in ourjurisdiction, that "a litigant should not be allowed to suffer through the mistake of an 16 officer of the Court connected with the administration ofjustice and that Courts have a duty to ensure that Court records are true and that they represent an accurate record of the proceedings." (emphasis added) I take it from the above quoted decision of the Court of Appeal that "Courts have a duty to ensure that Court records are true and that they represent an accurate record of the proceedings" I have asked myself whether the contents of the Judgment by Consent and Consent Decree issued by this Court on 28th July 2022 represent an accurate record of the proceedings? My answer is in the negative. The proceedings show that the Court from the very beginning intended that two Deeds of settlement be filed separately that is one with respect to the claims of the Plaintiff as against the Defendants and the other with respect to the Claims of the Defendants as against the Third Party. Both deeds of settlement were duly filed pursuant to the directives of the Court and were recorded separately in Court and consent settlement orders were passed thereon on different dates. However, ultimately, only one Judgment by Consent and decree was passed containing only the terms of one deed of settlement thereby completely leaving out the terms of the other deed of settlement earlier filed and 17 recorded in Court. I find'that was an accidental slip. The consent Judgment and Decree reflecting only the terms of one deed of settlement, were narrower in scope and thus not representing the broader scope that the proceedings had progressed. The proceeding's involved third-Party Proceedings and therefore culminated into two separate and unrelated deeds of settlement. Mr. Kibanda, learned Advocate for the second Respondent has argued that the Applicants should have appealed or sought review since they are aggrieved with the Decree and Judgment by Consent. I do not agree. Indeed, as it was argued by Mr. Mayenga, learned Advocate, the Applicants are not challenging the content of either deed of Settlement. They are not challenging the orders issued in the Judgment by Consent and the Decree thereon. The Applicants are reminding the Court that whereas it had directed that two separate deeds of settlement be entered by the parties and filed in Court, ultimately the Court ended issuing Judgment and Decree incorporating only the terms of one deed of settlement thereby inadvertently forgetting to incorporate the terms of the other deed of settlement which had also been filed pursuant to the orders of the Court. The Applicants are 18 not calling upon this Court now to vary a single term of the two deeds of settlement and the consent settlement orders. Mr. Kibanda, learned Advocate argued that the application, if granted, will prejudice the 2nd Respondent as it will shift the obligation of the terms of the deed of settlement entered between the Applicants and the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent. This argument is unfounded. Like I have said, the present application does not seek to alter a single term in the two deeds of settlement filed in Court. If filing the Deed of Settlement signed by the Applicants and the 1st Respondent did not impose its obligations upon the 2nd Respondent, issuance of a decree and judgment in terms agreed between the 1st Respondent and Applicants in their deed of settlement, will not superimpose upon the 2nd Respondent any such obligations either. Mr.Kibanda, learned Advocate, needs only refer to the provisions of Order I Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, CAP 33 which direct that the question of third party's liability may be tried in such manner, at or after the trial of the suit, as the Court may direct or, if the Court is not so satisfied, pass such decree or make such order as the nature of the case may require. As the third-party claim may be entertained simultaneously with the suit or separately after trial of the suit, it follows that the Court could pronounce 19 one judgment thereby determining both the suit and the Third-Party Claim or pronounce two separate Judgments, one as between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the other as between the Defendants and the Third Party. In the case at hand there was no trial of the suit or of the Third-Party Clam since parties in both claims settled out of Court and filed in Court their respective deeds of settlement on different dates. I take it that when pursuant to the order of Hon. Magoiga,J., parties executed two separate Deeds of Settlement and filed them in Court on 20th April 2022 and on 28th July 2022, it means that the Third Party Claim was also "determined" (by parties consent) on 20th April 2022. The Claims in the suit were "determined" (by parties' consent) on 28th July 2022. If we treat the deeds of settlement that they constituted "decisions or judgments" then the Third- party Claim was decided separately from the main suit. To each deed of settlement, the Court pronounced a consent settlement order and a judgment and decree by consent was therefore due. Ultimately, only one Judgment and Decree reflecting only the terms of the Deed of Settlement of 28th July 2022 in respect of the suit, was issued by the Court. It means that the other consent Judgment and Decree emanating from the terms of the 20th April, 2022 deed of settlement relating to the Third-Party Claim 20 remained, and to date remains, pending. This Court therefore can either rectify the already issued consent Judgment and Decree by incorporating therein the terms of the other Deed of Settlement emanating from Third Party Claim or, alternatively, issue another Judgment and Decree containing exclusively the terms of the deed of settlement relating to the Third-Party Claim. In either option, I will not be reviewing, revising or anyhow altering the Consent Judgment of Hon. Maruma, J., dated 28th July 2022 -which power I do not have as this Court would thereby be functus officio. The rule of functus official allows two exceptions, however. These are the rectification of errors or slip rule and review. The present application has been brought in an attempt to invite this Court to canvas the narrow terrain of its residual powers of its own decision by rectifying the inadvertent errors. When I correct the inadvertent errors, I will not be making substantive changes, rather merely fulfilling the Court's duty to ensure that Court records are true and that they represent an accurate record of the proceedings. Ideally, if Hon. Maruma,J., was still posted to this station, she would have been the most suited person to rectify the Court's Judgment and Decree and incorporate the terms of the Deed of Settlement relating to the Third Party Claim so as to make the record complete with respect to both the suit and 21 the Third Party Claim. As a successor Judge, I step in the same shoes of my predecessor and my powers are limited only to the extent of rectification and not varying the orders issued. The rectification is confined to something that was initially intended but was left out or added, against such intention. The intention of the Court from the beginning was to record two deeds of settlement thereby disposing of both the suit and the Third-Party Claim. The Court ordered two deeds of settlement to be filed. By subsequently issuing consent Judgment and Decree with regard to only one Deed of Settlement, it was an inadvertence of the Court. Mr. Kibanda submitted that the Judgment by consent issued on 28th July 2022 replaced the Deed of settlement dated 20th April 2022.1 do not agree. The Deed of Settlement of 20th April 2022 was recorded in Court by issuance of consent settlement order between the Applicants and the 1st Respondent in respect of the Third- Party Claim. It involved different parties than the Deed of Settlement of the suit filed on 28th July 2022. The terms of the Deed of Settlement of 28th July 2022 did not (and could not) contain any express or implied terms that it was replacing the earlier filed Deed of Settlement on 20th April 2022. As such both deeds of settlement and their respective consent settlement orders co­ exist in Court record but only one has been reduced into a Judgment and 22 Decree by consent leaving the other one dormant. The application at hand is seeking to bring up the Deed of Settlement dated 20th April 2022 so that a judgment and decree by consent can be also pronounced thereon for its execution against the 1st Respondent, who does not oppose the present application. The Court has powers to rectify such an error without subjecting parties to appeal, revision or review processes over a matter not even disputed by the party against whom the order of rectification is sought (the 1st respondent herein). The objection by the 2nd Respondent, as I have pointed out, was based on the misconception that the rectification would shift the obligations of the 1st Respondent herein to the 2nd Respondent. That is not the case and cannot be the case. Actually, I could not imagine how, the decreed obligations of a Third Party towards the Defendant could possibly be shifted to the Plaintiff who had won a case against the Defendant. I have considered the best option available in the present case. On one hand I could rectify the Judgment and Decree in respect of the claims in the suit that was issued on 28th July 2022 by incorporating in it the terms of the Deed of Settlement in respect of the Third-Party Claim. Issuance of one Judgment combining both the main suit and the Third-Party Claim would be 23 acceptable under Order I Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, given that the Consent Judgment was issued to parties on 28th July 2022, this would result into two different versions of the same Judgment and Decree in existence. On the other hand, I could issue a separate Consent Judgment and Decree incorporating in it the forgotten terms of the Deed of Settlement in respect of the Third-Party Claim. As the issued Consent Decree does not incorporate the terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 20th April 2022 in respect of the Third-Party Claim, there will be no conflicting decrees in co-existence. For certainty and ease of execution, I deem it prudent to issue a new separate Consent Judgment and decree incorporating only the terms of the Deed of Settlement dated 20th April 2022 in respect of the Third- Party Claim. Therefore, I grant the Application without costs as the inadvertence leading to this application was by the Court. In fine, I allow the Application and order that: (1) The Consent Judgment of this Court in Commercial Case No.35 of 2021 between CRDB Bank PLC (Plaintiff) versus JSSC Company Limited (1st Defendant); Andrew John Chenge (2nd Defendant); Adam Shaban 24 Salehe (3rd Defendant); Maduhu Sangudi Kitalima (4th Defendant); SUMA JKT Construction Company Limited (Third Party) and The Hon. Attorney General (Necessary Party) dated 28th July 2022 is rectified by expunging from it any reference to the Deed of Settlement and Compromise of a Suit dated 20th April 2022 in Commercial Case No. 35 of 2021. (2) A Consent Judgment and Decree is hereby entered in Commercial Case No.35 of 2021 between CRDB Bank PLC (Plaintiff) versus JSSC Company Limited (1st Defendant); Andrew John Chenge (2nd Defendant); Adam Shaban Salehe (3rd Defendant); Maduhu Sangudi Kitalima (4th Defendant); SUMA JKT Construction Company Limited (Third Party) and The Hon. Attorney General (Necessary Party) in terms of the Deed of Settlement and Compromise of a Suit dated 20th April 2022 in Commercial Case No. 35 of 2021 for orders that: (a) That the Third Party admits to have paid the sum of TZS 183,000,000/= out of the claimed sum that is TZS 571,850,240/= being balance of the purchase price for the cement bags consignment supplied and delivered to the 3rd Party by the 1st Defendant. 25 (b) That the 3rd Party herein admits the remaining claim of TZS 362,664,000( TZS. three hundred sixty-two Million, Six hundred Thousand and sixty four thousand) to be paid under the agreed Schedule as hereunder provided: (c) That the 3rd Party shall pay the 1st Defendant a total amount of TZS 362,664,000 (TZS. Three Hundred Sixty-Two Million, Six Hundred Thousand and Sixty-Four Thousand) being the remaining principal amount claimed by the 1st Defendant in the Third-Party Notice as a final and full satisfaction of the claim. (d) That the said amount of 362,664,000 (TZS. Three Hundred Sixty-Two Million, Six Hundred Thousand and Sixty Four Thousand) shall be paid in two installments in the following manner: (i) The First instalment of TZS 181,332,000/= shall be paid on 30th April 2022. (ii) The Second instalment of TZS 181,332,000/= shall be paid on 30th June 2022. (e) The above instalments will be deposited in the 1st Defendant Bank Account Number whose details are given bellow: 26 Name: JSSC Company Limited Bank Name: Ecobank Tanzania Limited Account No.0091035405523201 Branch: Kinondoni. (f) That by executing the Deed of Settlement the 1st Defendant waives all other claims for interest, general damages for loss of business and costs incurred in pursuing this claim. (g) That in case of default to observe the terms and conditions of the Deed of Settlement, the 1st Defendant shall be entitled to invoke execution proceedings to recover the total sum or any amount which shall be outstanding then. (h) Each party shall bear its own costs. (3) Each party shall bear its own costs in this application. It is so ordered. 27 09/08/2024 Ruling is delivered in Court this 9th day of August, 2024 in the presence of Ms. Magori Nyamoyo, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Denis Maganga, learned Advocate for the 2nd Respondent. A. H. GONZI JUDGE 09/08/2024 28