RULING OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION LETICIA VEDASTO VERSUS EDMUND MWASAGA AND EXIM BANK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. COMMERCIAL APPLICATION NO. 011780 OF 2024 LETICIA VEDASTO NGILILEA T/A LETISCO SUPPLIES ……………...................….....1ST APPLICANT GODFREY RUTAIHWA RUTECHURA ……………...… 2ND APPLICANT VERSUS EDMUND AARON MWASAGA…………………….…… 1ST RESPONDENT EXIM BANK (TANZANIA) LIMITED ...................... 2ND RESPONDENT SHEILA A. SHABAN t/a MULTI-LINK AGENCY AND COURT BROKER …………………………….….. 3RD RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 13/08/2024 Date of Ruling: 04/10/2024 GONZI, J. In Commercial Case No. 51/2012, the 2nd Respondent secured a Judgment and Decree of this Court against the Applicants herein. In execution of the said Decree, the Applicants’ Plot No. 1270, CT No.78611 1 located at Mbezi Louis Dar es Salaam, was auctioned by the 3rd Respondent on 18th February 2022. The First Respondent purchased it in the auction. Dissatisfied with the manner in which the auction was conducted, the Applicants decided to challenge it but by then they were already out of time. The Applicants, therefore, filed Misc. Commercial Application No.146/2023 seeking an extension of time within which to bring an application to set aside the sale of their landed property by auction. On 30th April 2024, this Court (Hon. Mkeha, J) allowed the application and granted the Applicants 30 days within which to file the application seeking for orders to set aside the sale by auction. The present Application was ultimately filed under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 88(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. In this application, the Applicants are seeking for an order to set aside the sale of Plot No. 1270, CT No.78611, Mbezi Louis which was sold in execution of the Decree in Commercial Case No. 51/2012. The Applicants filed the Application online on 20th May 2024, got control number on 21st May 2024, paid and obtained an exchequer receipt on 22nd May 2024. The case was admitted electronically on 22nd May 2024. On 3rd June 2024, the Applicants presented hard copies of the documents constituting the present application to the Registry Officer and the same were received on the same date. On 6th June 2024, the hard 2 copy of the Chamber Summons was endorsed by the Hon. Deputy Registrar who signed and sealed it with the seal of the Court. The Respondents were subsequently served with the hard copies of the documents constituting the present application, namely the Chamber Summons and Affidavit as well as the annextures to the affidavit. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed counter affidavits opposing the application at hand. The 3rd Respondent did not file a counter affidavit despite being served. In addition to filing a counter affidavit, the 1st Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection in law that: (a) The present application is hopelessly time barred. The 1st Respondent prayed that the Preliminary Objection be upheld and the Application be dismissed with costs. Learned Counsel for all the parties involved were heard viva voce on the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Respondent. The Applicants had the services of Mr. Walter Shayo, Learned Advocate. The First Respondent had the services of Mr. Masumbuko Roman, Learned Advocate. The 2nd Respondent had the services of Mr. Gasper Nyika, Learned Advocate. The 3 3rd Respondent did not file Counter affidavit and did not enter appearance in Court despite being served. The matter proceeded exparte against her. Mr. Masumbuko Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that the application is time barred. He argued that the application is an outcome of the Ruling in Misc. Commercial Application No. 146/2023 which was delivered on 30th April, 2024. Mr. Roman submitted that the Ruling in Misc. Commercial Application No.146/2023 required the Applicants to file the necessary application within 30 days from the date of delivery of that Ruling. He argued that the 30 days expired on 30th May 2024, counting from 1st May, 2024. He submitted that according to the hard copy served upon the Respondents, the Chamber Summons was filed in Court on 3rd June 2024 and that the typed word “May” in it is cancelled by pen and substituted with the word “June”. He submitted that the Deputy Registrar endorsed the Chamber Summons on 6th June, 2024 by signing it and dating it as such. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that the endorsement in the Chamber Summons by the Deputy Registrar marked the date when the Application was filed in Court. He submitted that the current application was, therefore, filed 7 days outside the extended time given by the Court in the Ruling that had given the Applicants an extension of time. He submitted that the 4 supporting joint affidavit of the Applicants which was served upon the Respondents, does not show that the same was ever received in Court nor was it filed at all as it is not signed by the Registry Officer who purportedly received it together with the Chamber Summons. He submitted, therefore, that in this application, there is no affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. He submitted that even the Chamber Summons itself was filed out of time. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Application is, therefore, hopelessly time barred and should be dismissed with costs. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that issue of time limitation is a matter that goes to the jurisdiction of the Court. It is a statutory requirement and it may be raised at any stage of the case and that it can be raised by parties or by the Court suo motu. He relied, for this rule, on the case of Zaidi Baraka versus Exim Bank (2016) decided by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania where the Court itself raised an issue of time limitation by looking at the documents. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, referred the Court to pages 10 and 11 of the decision to underscore his point. He submitted that the Court can take cognizance of the fact that the Chamber summons in this case was presented for filing in Court on 3rd June, 2024 and it was endorsed by the Deputy Registrar on 6th June, 2024 which was beyond 5 the 30 days granted in the Court order. He submitted that the same dates are borne out in all the documents served upon all parties to the case. He reasoned that this shows that the application is time barred. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that in law, a delay to file the application even by a single day, would still make the application time barred. He prayed that the application be dismissed with costs. In his brief submissions, Mr. Gasper Nyika, Learned Advocate for the 2nd Respondent, concurred to what Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, had argued. He only added that whether the Court looks at 3rd June 2024 when the Application was physically filed in Court, or at 6th June, 2024 when the Chamber Summons was endorsed by the Honourable Deputy Registrar, the application will still be time barred. He concluded that the only remedy for a time-barred application is its dismissal with costs. Mr. Walter Shayo, Learned Advocate for the Applicants, made reply submissions. He submitted that the current application was filed electronically online on 20th May, 2024 and that payment of the filing fees thereof was made on 21st May, 2024. He submitted that the Application was officially admitted electronically by the Court on 22nd May, 2024. He 6 submitted that the online filing of the Application was done according to Rule 8 of the JALA (Electronic Filing Rules) GN. 148/2018 which requires that all documents such as pleadings and applications should be filed electronically. He submitted that the documents instituting the present Application were electronically filed in Court by 22nd May, 2024 when they became part of Court record. He submitted that the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 under Rule 9 provide that the official record of the Court shall be the Electronic case file. Therefore, he argued, as per the Rules, the records to be relied upon are the ones in the electronic case file which reflect the application as filed online. Mr. Shayo, Learned Advocate, submitted that the online Court records show that the filing date for this application was on 22nd May, 2024. He cited Rule 21 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 which prescribes that a document shall be deemed to have been filed in Court if it is filed before Midnight on the date the document is submitted online unless it is rejected by the Court. Mr. Shayo, Learned Advocate, submitted that the hard copies of the documents which were received and signed by the Registry Officer on 3rd June, 2024 and subsequently endorsed by the Hon. Deputy Registrar on 6th June, 2024, were signed only when the Applicants were following up to 7 obtain Court summonses so as to serve the application upon the Respondents. He submitted that it was at that moment when the hard copies of the documents were required so that Court summonses in hard copies could be issued. Mr. Walter Shayo, Learned Advocate, urged the Court to take cognizance of the fact that the Electronic Case File is the prevailing official Court record in terms of Rule 9 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018. He submitted further that the case of Zaidi Baraka and 2 others (supra) cited by the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, is distinguishable and irrelevant as it does not deal with the issue of electronic filing. He argued that Rule 10 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018, provides that the Electronic Case File is open to parties and the advocates, therefore, the Respondents’ counsel could have verified the information in the online case file as to the actual date the application at hand was truly filed. Mr. Shayo, Learned Advocate, prayed that the Preliminary Objection be dismissed with costs. By way of rejoinder, Mr. Masumbuko Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants had not responded to the issue of non-filed and unsigned supporting affidavit accompanying the chamber summons. He argued, therefore, that it should be taken as an admission on the part of the Applicants that there is no Affidavit filed in Court in support of the present 8 application. He called upon the Court to find the application incompetent in that regard. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, argued further that the arguments made by Mr. Shayo, Learned Advocate, who made reliance on Electronic Filing Rules, 2018, were made with a view to shifting the blame upon the Deputy Registrar. He argued, however, that the submissions by the Learned Counsel for the Applicants were merely statements by the Counsel from the bar. He submitted that the Applicants needed to file an affidavit from the Hon. Deputy Registrar showing as to why she had endorsed the Chamber Summons on 6th June 2024 and not earlier. He argued that as there is no affidavit to that effect, the Court cannot rely on the verbal arguments by the Applicants’ Counsel. He submitted, therefore, that the submissions by the Learned Counsel for the Applicants on the dates of filing the application online on 20th May, 2024 and making payments of filing fees on 21st May, 2024, are unsubstantiated but they are mere statements made by the Learned Counsel from the bar, with no evidential value. He submitted that the electronically filed documents, if any, were not served upon the Respondents. He argued that by relying on the electronically filed documents, the learned Counsel for the Applicants had, in effect, disowned 9 the documents filed physically and which are the only ones which were served upon the other side to the case. Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, urged the Court to ignore the arguments made by Applicants’ Counsel on electronic filing as there is an admission by the Applicants’ Learned Counsel that the documents served upon the Respondents were different ones from the documents which were filed electronically in the online filing system. In a further rejoinder, Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 provide guidance on the procedure of filing documents in Court, but do not provide guidance with respect to documents filed outside the prescribed time. He submitted that if one brings the hard copies of the electronically filed documents in Court, outside the prescribed time, he is out of time even if he had electronically filed the same documents online timely. He submitted that when the hard copies of the Chamber Summons initiating the present application were brought before the Deputy Registrar for endorsement, the Deputy Registrar cancelled the imprinted date and Month on the Chamber summons and inserted the then current date and month after being aware that the documents had been filed outside the prescribed time. 10 Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, submitted that generating the control number and filing the documents online does not change the position of the law. He argued that the documents used for filing the present application were submitted in Court for physical filing on 3rd June 2024, hence outside the prescribed time and that the same were signed by the Deputy Registrar on 6th June 2024. He submitted that the Zaidi Baraka case (supra) is relevant to the case at hand and that the learned counsel for the Applicant had not given reasons for distinguishing that case. Mr. Gasper Nyika, Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, added to the rejoinder submissions that if the electronic record was conclusive, why did the Applicants allow the hard copy of the same Chamber summons to be presented to the Hon. Deputy Registrar to be endorsed on a different date? He reasoned that the endorsement of the Chamber Summons by the Deputy Registrar was a requirement of the law that a Chamber summons has to be given “under hand and seal of the Court”. He submitted that since, in law, the Hon. Deputy Registrar was supposed to give the Chamber Summons under her Hand and Seal of the Court, the date of such endorsement by the Hon. Deputy Registrar was necessarily the effective date that the particular Chamber summons was legally filed in Court. He submitted that the Chamber 11 summons in this case that was endorsed on 6th June 2024, instead of latest by 30th May 2024, was hopelessly time barred. He supported the prayer for dismissal of the present application with costs. That marked the end of the oral submissions by the Learned Counsel in this case. I thank them for their useful arguments. In the case at hand, the only Preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Respondent was that: (a) The present application is hopelessly time barred. In the course of hearing the oral arguments by the Learned Counsel for all parties, Mr. Masumbuko Roman, Learned Advocate for the 1st Respondent, inadvertently attempted to widen the goal posts by arguing that the Application at hand is also defective for not being accompanied with a supporting affidavit duly signed by the Registry Officer. That move by the Learned Counsel was not proper. Due Notice of Preliminary Objection was given to the other side to the case that the application would be challenged on a preliminary point of law for its being time barred. It was not open then for the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, without prior leave of the Court, to unilaterally tack another preliminary objection on top of the one 12 specifically raised in the Notice of Preliminary Objection and which was on the table to be argued. Allowing that practice would give Court proceedings an element of taking the other side by surprise and thereby deprive him of his full right to be heard. The right to be heard entails also the right to know in advance the case one is going to face in Court and get adequate time to prepare for it. Further, such practice would make the Court proceedings uncontrollable by the Court but by the parties. The inherent judicial powers of case management would be hijacked. I will therefore disregard the new and unilaterally added objection concerning the filling or non-filing of the affidavit in support of the Application and proceed to determine only the Preliminary Objection that was specifically raised by the 1st Respondent and argued by the parties through their Learned Counsel. I, once again, thank the Learned Counsel for the Applicants, the 1st and the 2nd Respondents in this case for their very useful submissions. In this case, it is not disputed at all that pursuant to the Court Order in Misc. Commercial Application No.146/2023, the application at hand was supposed to have been filed within 30 days from 30th April, 2024 that is by 30th May, 2024 counting as from 1st May, 2024. The dispute is on when this application was actually filed. The Applicants maintain that they timely filed 13 the present application in Court electronically by 22nd May 2024, hence it was filed within the prescribed time. The 1st Respondent, supported by the 2nd Respondent, is of the position that the present application was belatedly filed in Court on 3rd June, 2024 when it was received and signed by the Registry Officer or, in alternative, that the application was filed in Court on 6th June 2024 when the Hon. Deputy Registrar endorsed the Chamber summons under her hand and seal of the Court. The Respondents therefore are of the view that the application is time barred and should be dismissed with costs. When was this application “filed”? Reading through the online or electronic case file in the Electronic Case management System (e-CMS), I find the following details: “Filing Date-Wednesday 22nd May 2024, Case No. 11780/2024HC/DSM/COM/MCA/11780/2024”. The Electronic Case File contains scanned copies of the Chamber Summons and the Joint Affidavit of the Applicants that was sworn and executed on 17th May, 2024. The Government Bill with Control Number that bears QR Code was issued on Monday 20th May, 2024. The Exchequer Receipt evidencing payment of the filing fees shows that the payment date 14 of the filing fees was Tuesday, 21st May, 2024. On the other hand, there is the hard copy or the physical file of the same application. It shows that the Chamber Summons was presented for filing in Court on 3rd June, 2024. There is no date or signature of the Registry Officer in the accompanying hard copy of the affidavit. The Chamber Summons was signed and endorsed by the Honourable Deputy Registrar on 6th June, 2024. It is clear, therefore, that there is a difference on the dates when the electronic and the physical copies of the same documents, initiating the same application, were submitted in Court by the Applicants. The Applicants rely on both the electronically filed documents which were filed on time and the physically filed copies which were presented out of time. The Respondents, on the other side, recognize only the physically filed copies of the documents that were served upon them and which apparently arrived in Court outside the prescribed time. Both, the electronic case file and the physical case file are before me and contain the same documents presented to Court on different dates by different modes. That is the essence of the controversy that has brought the parties at loggerhead in the form of the present preliminary objection. The question still remains. When was this application “filed”? 15 I should hasten to say that the position of the law on this aspect is not settled. In the case of NMB BANK PLC VERSUS FABIOLA DEOGRATIUS MAAMI t/a FABIOLA CURIO SHOP, Civil Application No. 152/02 of 2024, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha held that: “in terms of rule 21 of the Judicature and Application of Laws (Electronic Filing) Rules, 2018 the time for the filing accrues from the date that the control number for payment of the necessary fee was generated in the system, in this case on 29th December, 2023 hence the application assigned the number.” In the case of CHRIS GEORGE KASALILE versus TANZANIA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Civil Application No.775/01/2022, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam held that: “As a matter of literal interpretation of laws, the rule is clear that the issue of filing documents electronically for Court use, has no relationship with payment of filing fees. However, this is a gray area subject to be determined on appeal upon extension of time.” 16 Whereas the interpretation of the law on this area appears to be not settled, nevertheless, the present application must be decided one way or the other according to the law. Therefore, the question still nags as to when was this application “filed” in Court? I think the starting point should be to ascertain what does the term “filing” entails in relation to the electronic mode of filing documents in Court. Inevitably recourse should be had to both the High Court Registries Rules, 2005 as amended from time to time and the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018. Under Rule 3 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018, the term “electronic filing” is defined as follows: “Electronic filing” means the submission of documents through the electronic filing system but does not include e-mailing or sending a document by facsimile.” (emphasis added) Rule 10(2) of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018, provides: “Filing, service, delivery or conveyance of a document using the electronic filing system under these Rules may be done in one of the following manner- 17 (a) by electronic transmission.” This means that “filing” of documents in Court is essentially the submission or transmission of such documents by a party or his agent to Court for the purpose of entering the same in the Registry. The documents are submitted or transmitted to the Court’s Registry or sub-registry so at to be recorded or registered in the Register kept at the registry/sub-registry. The submission or transmission of Court documents can be done electronically or physically (if exempted under Rule 20(1) of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018.) Whatever the mode is used by a party or his agent to transmit or submit the documents to Court, the net effect is the same. Submission or transmission of the documents results into “filing” the documents such as pleadings, petitions, applications, appeals and such other documents in the registry. Filing is done by a party or his agent, not by the Court. So far as a party is concerned, the law deems filing as complete upon submission or transmission of the documents to the registry of the Court so as to be entered into register, unless the Court rejects the submitted documents. The subsequent processes done by the Court’s officials after a party files the documents, leading to the admission or rejection of the case, are not part of filing and a party has no control over them and as such no 18 time limit can be imposed upon a party in relation thereof. Submission or transmission of the documents from a party or his agent to Court for purposes of the same being entered into the register, effectively concludes filing, unless the submitted documents are rejected by the Court. Rule 21 of the Electronic Filing Rules is relevant as to the meaning of “filing” and as to when is filing complete. It is consistent to what is explained in Rules 3 and 10 thereof. It provides that: “21.-(1) A document shall be considered to have been filed if it is submitted through the electronic filing system before midnight, East African time, on the date it is submitted, unless a specific time is set by the Court or it is rejected. (2) A document submitted at or after midnight or on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday shall, unless it is rejected by the Court, be considered filed the next working day. “(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, it is crystal clear that the date and time of submission or transmission of the document through the electronic filing system, constitutes the time of electronic filing of the document in question. It should 19 be noted that the term “electronic filing system” used under Rule 21 is defined under rule 3 as “submitting the document via the internet.” Even if documents are filed physically, filing entails the submission of documents by a party or his agent to the Court registry. The High Court Registries Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time up to 2024, show that, among others, a register shall be kept and maintained in each of the High Court Registries and sub-registries. Reading the Rules, it is clear that it is in the particular Court’s registry or sub-registry that proceedings concerning cases are instituted. Proceedings are instituted by a party filing the relevant documents for the case in the Registry or sub-registry. It is clear that the further processes taken by the Court after a party submits the Court document do not constitute “filing”. I am, therefore, of the view that filing documents in Court may be done physically (where one is exempted from filing electronically by the Registrar or Magistrate Incharge under Rule 20(1) of the Electronic Filing Rules 2018), or electronically pursuant to the requirements of Rule 8 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018. Both modes of filing entail the same process of submission or transmission of the documents by a party or his agent to the Court’s 20 registry so that the same can be put in the register. The Court’s registry or sub-registry in which the documents are filed physically or electronically, is the same and it is established by the High Court Registries Rules, 2005, as amended. The Electronic Filing Rules do not establish a new or different registry wherein documents filed electronically enter and which is distinct from the registry in which documents filed physically enter. As the registry is the same, it follows that where a case document is filed in the registry electronically, the same case document cannot subsequently be “filed” in the same registry physically. It may only be “presented” in another form but not “filed” again. Once a case document is filed in the registry without rejection, it is like an egg fertilized, the door is closed. Ordinarily there is no room for subsequent filing in the same or different mode, of the same case document in the same registry for the same case and at the same case stage. What then is the status of the hard copies of documents brought to Court after the electronic filing is completed? The Electronic Filing Rules, 2018, provide under Rule 25 that: “25. Hard copies of all pleadings and other documents filed electronically may be printed by: 21 (a) The parties, their advocates or authorized representatives for their use in Court or elsewhere; or (b) The registry, for use of the Court where need arises.” It is clear under Rule 25 above that once electronic filing of documents in Court is complete, the hard copies of the same documents are not subsequently filed again. They may be printed for use of the parties or the Court where need arises. In this regard, after electronic filing of documents happens, the hard copies may only be “presented” to Court but not to be “filed” in the registry as filing of the same documents in the same registry for the same case at the same case stage would have already been done and completed upon their earlier submission or transmission electronically. Now, the law of limitation relates to time of “filing” and not the optional process of “presentation” of the documents in Court. Perhaps, I should add here that the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 vest control of the entire filing process upon the party. He can initiate and submit or transmit the documents to the Court registry electronically via the internet. The same control is exercised by a party in case of physical filing. 22 However, the law puts a safeguard that if the filed documents are subsequently rejected by the Court they shall be deemed to have never been filed in the first place. This is a bit awkward because if filing was complete but later on the documents were rejected by the Court, then the position should have been as such that the documents were actually filed but later on rejected. The Electronic Filing Rules provide that if the earlier filed documents are subsequently rejected (for whatever relevant reasons) by the Court, the documents shall be deemed to have not been filed in the first place. I understand that this provision preserves the powers of the Court’s Registry Officers and Judicial Officers. Therefore, if the filing is not rejected, it is deemed to have been completed as from the moment the party who filed it transmitted or submitted it physically or electronically via the internet in line with Rule 21 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018. If the filed document is rejected by the Court, filing is deemed to have not been completed. Back to the fate of the preliminary objection at hand. The Electronic Case File shows that the application at hand was electronically filed on 22nd May, 2024. The filed documents were not subsequently rejected by the Court and hence the filing was effectively complete the moment the Applicants submitted or transmitted electronically via internet their Chamber Summons 23 and Affidavit. The Court Order in Misc. Commercial Application No.146/2023 had granted the Applicants up to 30th May, 2024 to file the present application. It follows, therefore, that the application at hand was filed well within the extended time of 30 days in compliance with the Court Order. The hard copies of the same application which were presented in Court on 3rd June, 2024 were optional in terms of Rule 25 of the Electronic Filing Rules and hence irrelevant in law, so far as the time of “filing” is concerned. They were actually not “filed” and were incapable of being “filed”, legally speaking. There couldn’t be filing twice the same case documents in the same Court registry at the same case stage. One could either file the documents physically pursuant to Rule 20(1) or electronically; but not both. What the Applicants did on 3rd June 2024, was merely the presentation of hardcopies of the documents prior filed electronically in Court, for other uses where need arises. The presentment, however, did not constitute filing since filing of the same document had already been done electronically and completed way back on 20th May 2024, hence leaving no room for “filing” the same documents in the same registry and register. So long as the documents had been electronically filed, the Applicants could not be late to present the hard copies thereof unless there was a specific Court order requiring them to 24 present the hard copies by a certain date in Court. There was no such order in the present case. The preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Respondent is, therefore, misconceived and I do hereby proceed to dismiss it with costs as against the 1st Respondent. Mr. Masumbuko Roman, Learned Advocate for the 1st Respondent, in his arguments urged the Court to disregard the electronically filed documents of the Applicant. Now, those documents were filed in the Court’s registry established under the High Court Registries Rules. If the Court were to disown the documents electronically filed in the Court’s own Registry, wouldn’t the Court be disowning its own registry in effect? To hold that way, it would tantamount to the Court ruling that the documents filed online were filed in an unknown registry or sub-registry, not recognized by the Court. The argument by Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate for the 1st Respondent, therefore, does not appeal to the Court. Accepting that argument would further be in sharp contrast with the provision of Rule 8 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 which provides that: “All pleadings, petitions, applications, appeals and such other documents shall be filed electronically in accordance with these Rules.” 25 In view of the above provision, why would the Applicants be punished for having duly complied with the legal requirement of online filing? That would not be in accord with justice. Mr. Masumbuko Roman, Learned Advocate for the 1st Respondent, in his arguments submitted that the electronically filed documents, were not served upon the Respondents. I have noted that Mr. Roman, Learned Advocate, does not dispute be served with hard copies of the same documents filed electronically. He was served and was able to file a counter affidavit on time in this application. The complaint has no merit as the documents filed electronically are the same whose hard copies were later on presented physically in Court. At any rate, the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Respondent was not on his not being served, but on the documents being filed out of time and thus the application, therefore, being time-barred. The argument is, therefore, not relevant to the preliminary objection. Mr. Nyika, Learned Advocate, advanced an argument that the endorsement date of the Chamber Summons by the Hon. Deputy Registrar should be taken to be the filing date of the documents. I do not accept it. Not all pleadings, petitions, applications, appeals and such other documents 26 filed in Court’s registry or sub-registry would require endorsement by the Deputy Registrar under her hand and seal of the Court. The date of endorsement cannot therefore be deemed as the filing date as it does not apply to all filed pleadings, petitions, applications, appeals and such other documents. Further, the endorsement process for the Chamber Summons by the Deputy Registrar under her hand and seal of the Court is an internal process over which a party filing the case has no control or role to play after duly filing his documents in the Court’s registry or sub-registry. It would be unjust to penalize the Applicants by holding them time barred in filing their application timely but which application was signed by the Court at a later date. At any rate there is no law that was cited by the Learned Counsel to show that the date the Chamber Summons is endorsed by the Hon. Deputy Registrar, is to be taken as the date of filing the particular document in Court. To the contrary, there exists a law namely the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 which under Rule 21 recognize the date and time the documents are submitted electronically as the date and time of filing the said documents. In fact, the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018 under Rules 36, allow the Hon. Deputy Registrar and other Judicial Officers to endorse their signatures electronically in Court documents. It provides: 27 “36. Any judgment, ruling, decree, order, notice or summons signed electronically shall have the same force and effect as if the Judge, the Registrar or the magistrate had affixed his signature to a paper copy of the order and it had been entered on the record in the conventional method.” It follows, therefore, that in this case the requirement of the Deputy Registrar to endorse the Chamber Summons under her hand and seal of the Court, could as well have been wholly accomplished electronically without the Applicants presenting hard copies of the Chamber Summons and Affidavits which they had already filed electronically and which had not been rejected by the Court. The presentment of the Chamber Summons in hard copies on 3rd June 2024 for endorsement by the Hon. Deputy Registrar on 6th June 2024, was optional in terms of Rule 25 of the Electronic Filing Rules, 2018, and as argued by Mr. Walter Shayo, Learned Counsel for the Applicants, it was only for use of the Applicants themselves to serve hard copies upon the other side. It had no connection to the time limit of filing the present application. 28 All in all, I find no merit in the Preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Respondent in this case. The Preliminary Objection is hereby dismissed with costs to be borne by the 1st Respondent. It is so ordered. A. H. GONZI JUDGE 04/10/2024 Ruling is delivered in Court this 4th day of October, 2024 in the presence of Mr. Walter Shayo, Advocate for the Applicants; Mr. Frately Mnale, Advocate for the 1st Respondent and Ms. Eunice, F. Mtiro, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent. A. H. GONZI JUDGE 04/10/2024 29