19960924 TZCA Dar es Salaam

'\ IN TEE COURT OF ,;FpE,,L OF T}\NZANIA \ AT DAR ES S'ALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 1996 In the I'\:itter of an Intended Appeal BETWEEN LAU REAN G. RUGAIMUKAMU. • • • • • • • • APPLICANT AND THE EDITOR CF MFANYAKAZI NEltJSPi-,PER • • • RESPONDENT (Application for Extension of time to file Notice of Motion for correction of Judgement dated 28/5/93 from the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (KISANGA, RAMADHANI, And JViNZAVAS, JJJA.) in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1992 R U L I N .G KISANGA, J.A.: This application is for extension of time to file an application for the correction of the judgement of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1992 dated 28.5.93, so as to include an order for costs with interest from the date of filing that appeal to the date of judgement at the bank rate, ard thereafter at the court rate to the date of payment in full. The application is supported by the applicant's affidavit. In that affidavit the applicant states~ inter alia~ that he brought an application before a single Judge of this Court, for the correction of the said judgement of this Court in Civil Appeal . No. 39 of 1992 but.. that the learned Judge (Nyalali, C.J.) struck it out on grounds, among others, that t~e application was time- barrerl. Indeed the learned Chief Justice found the applicatio• ·to-be not only hopelessly out of time but that it also amounted ~ r 2 , .l\ccorcHng to the applicant, therefore, he is now bringing this application for extensiori of time in orrler to overcome the difficulty or hurdle which he encountered when he was before the Chief Justiceo Before the said Ruling by tl}e ]..earned Chief Justice, .this Court in its judgement earlier on in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1992 ' gave ju~~ement in favour of the. applicant but made no order for costs because there had not been any prayer for costs. Subsequently the applicant has made a number of attempts to have that judgement varied in order to include an order for costs on the grounds, among others, of his advocate' s inadvertence to include a prayer for costs in the memorandum of appeal. The Court, however consistently refused to make an order for costs where these were not asked for in the memorandum of appeal. (See for instance the last Ruling by the full Court in Civil Reference No. 8 of 1994 dated 23.5095)0 In this application the applicant has said nothing which advances the case any further. He, merely persists in his claim \) for an order for costs which, as stated before, has already been duly considered an0 refused by the full Court. Thus to grant the present application for extension of time would, in my view, amount to permitting the applicant to bring again before the Court a matter which this Court has already duly considered and decid~d upon on previour occasionso That would be improper. I associate myself fully with :the view that the applicant's conduct in pestering the Court with matters which have already been duly considered and decided upon amounts to an abuse of court processe Indee0 I go further anrl say that the application •••• /3 t . 3 is vexatious{ and the applicant is strongly advised to refraih from engaging in such type of litigation in the future. The matter is accordingly struck out for being grossly ~ mi$c::,onc~ivea· and hence incompetent. //(,:-~\~ ( v; DATED ~t DAR'ES SALAIIM this 24th day of 0 September, 1996. '-'\ ·. -_y(l ·' . .. 'l. ' :~. ~ '/" :-✓,/' R.H. KISANGA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify that this is. a true copy of the original. • 0 • •