20010919 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH cot,l! u.r ~---------- AT l·'hiANZA REVLSION\.L JURISDICTION (Mwanza Registry) ( Originating frcm Resident Magistrate's· court of Mwanza c:i.vil Case N:>.4/98) THE MAI\fAGI ID DIRECTffi OF R\TIONY,L INSURENCE CORPORATION. 0 , ~ • • , . 0 o o • APPLICANI' VERSUS: I (1) M/S MASUMIN GAR!i.GE I ,/ •· •· e o ,; o o o o o o .~o o o o o " ♦ o o • o o o o 0RESPC NOE N'JJ3 Ii 1 (2) THE DIRECTCR GEIBRAL OF T.RGC • It , .· . RULL NG MREMA., · JUDGE This is an ap;1:i~cation for :Revision by the MAN\.GINJ DIREC['OR OF THE Nl\.TIONJ\L INSURANCE CORPORi\.TICNt hereinafter referred to as tbe Applicant,. ;nd h~ is repre~entecf - .. : ~, .. . . ~- by the Learned adv~cate Mro Anthony Nasimire •. ']ke, -::: · · ResportdeJits cit$ J,Vs MASffi1I ~T GltR"-1.GE and the Direct ~r General OF TA NZA N[A ;:,< Rt\.b:MAYS cd.RPt"RATION9 he.rein.after referred to as the respondents~ The application is supported by the affidavit of the- applicantt ~· advocatet Mr. Anthony Kar~ ba N:,.simire. · rn· ,.. . order ....... t~. coherently . ·, . ·, - appreciate the nature of the application before this court, I find it safe and convinient to append berebelow ., the:·~/ grounds contained in Mr.-· Na.simiret s affidavit in support of the , .. ~;,-; .- ' application." The~e are as follows:- 3. That. on :I.6-~1998 , the Applicant filed an , app:Licat_ion in the District court of Mvmnza for extension of time t.q file .the··.,•.11·l:r.i-tterf---s- ~ .Statement of Defence •. · . I 4~ · That on22;...~i_998 the first respotident (plaintiff) was given l~ave. to pr:oce.ed ex...parte by p.ffg?J-vit and_ was required to file the said affidavit·. ; (.)} · ··That th<:)aid · lea.ve was given to the first Respondent _oofore _tl:l.e application for extension ·:.'. t· .- -\' ·;, ' of time· ··t'o ·riie written Statement of defence was heard' arid detern1ined, and the same was made .on a mention date. ' (6) · .. .-1 .. .'J1h3..t_,;t_he cou.:cfr~cord ·shows that .befo.J;'EL the':-,: said leave was granted to the 1st Respondent ;, .,__:;• ~, :, ;:-..-r·.··.·· .. •• • ' I ."1 (' the mai-n suit had been set for m·~:ntidn on the following dates, i•e' 17/3/1998t 20/3/1998 ~nd~2/5/i998~ ·. . , , ·, ·., i.'t.. -. .14 ~ ~ _.· .··. (7) That on 1/6/19~8 the Applicant filed an application to set aside the order for ex-pa.rte proo,f id.-a.ted 22/05/1998. .· . . ·• ·. -~ ~/: ( 8) That the court record shows that on l0/6/~'·2:.:: · the first respondent filed the affid~vit in --·, . . support of the ex-parte proof.· · 'il' ·.'. (9) That on 21/7/1998 the court gav~ _a ruling . . . ·: ,;:. . . refusiilg t5' hear the A~pl'icantts application t9-,p~t {:lsiqe the order' '-ex:-pa~te· ind ali:io fbr·; e xte.A~~ ~n ?[ :. t.J1:1.~ .t? Jil~ ~ ,the · wpitt? n.·statement . . ,·::,·,·· of defence. . ... . ·, ,;· ·. ..... '(10) .·· That the said r~fW3al was unjustifif:d '.and the applicant a fafr 'hearing~ •, Then WEV'have flte ': c'burit~r ·~~fiidav'it in'.• ;~~;;·~t ~f ,.the: 1st Respondent ·;,( ·.:. ·:.,-f M/S Masumini· Garagei: if' j(lrie'•'douriter· aff:i.da~':i:i)was f.il,?d 'by. Mr. p .R.K. . . - , . .., :,. . ~ ... . ··,; ... -~ ..- ,__ '~·\! !. _. Rugaiinukamu, ' . · learned atlvbciatl i~l the' l~t ··~esp'ond~'nt. :'"; ~!t . "All (, pa:r:;agraphs .. 1,2 . a,d, a.re admitted.·· · As regards p~rag;r-aph.5 0lf>:t'll:1e ·applldantt-s :affidavit, the 1st Respondent maiitains that"-the -ccnir't was ju'.s{r:tea t'6 proceed- the \vay it did after the . : ..-~::: ·i' ....... Applicant bad failed to prosecute _his 9 pplice.t:ion for extension of time within which to file WSD. And in paragraph 7, :i:t is the respondent• s surmise that the trial (.\ .- ..... court . . ' ... ' was ' . entitled -. .' ' , ·. an;:t . . justified ~ .. . '; to allow the .• '. ,· - - 1st respondent to ex-pa.rte prove, the cla:im since --the'~' applicant had failed ·, . . _;,. . ' ~ - , . to prosecute his application for extension· of time, with regard to grounds 8 and 91 the 1st applicant reiterates that tbe tr,~a], cowt was rif$ht to ',..:... -- 3 refuse setting aside. the .e:t~parte order for. -proof .of. the ..cl~im because .. t.' - < •• ~· : s ~· • ' ., • .. • • : • ,·. • •• _the iPP~icant did not show ..seri.ousn~s~ t6 pro9ecute his a,pplicatio~ It ;is :important . t'o ·cl;,arify th3.t a'ithough the application tihows ,) ·;thit there ,·is i second respondent,·· namely/ ·the· ·uire·ctot- General of , Tanzania Raihrays· Corpbration;, thl:s inst(3.nt. application, however, does ': •; :·. ,·,·'ricrt ;'.tionde'rh<the'· ·c6t-1io:r~t16ti.~--·The'•r(:fa'.S~n-'i:s in :\i"le~· of :the :fact 'that on .. . .. -< 14/07/98 •r.ii-;'· :-Ga1a.,t'.i;.' le~irt~d. acfv&cat~: 't8J,;tiie ·2nd resp;i,:d~nt'/f~l.setl a . ·,• . l • . . , , .. f·f!~ . ;'_"t"~Pralim:itary. :ob~~;ct':i,,on_i. llI'I?.'irig· t¾at. the :2.nd ·Def_endant1 ·in ~the ma:i,n s'?-¼t ··--~- h • ; }· i'~'.'\"<°;\t:f.pir~i_t:C,:rt::Getre:ta;t :tit~·'-mtc) ;..;a.·s· ..JP1p1:'c)p~r.ly, .jot~"d' ili 'the' suit .. for .the ft,lldwing reasons:... . , · · (1) That the .?laintiff/lst Respondent did not _issu0 the statutory notite to sue the :2nd defendant . .: ·. . . cl .. . .. (2nd resp~nd~nt) as mandatorily required by • :_r . '··. •• • . : • I • •• • • • • ~ section °'87 ..-... (a) 'of Act No.11 6:f ·1997 ~ The .:-.notfce1iaci.:to -~ ~ - e n e .month before the l • .. • . ,J.t1:31tit'-ution· of the s~t and t~ same .s~rv~d__ :on the Director' General ·bf the 2nd. Responde·nt (Defendant). _,., . -·.- . (2) FUrtbe7. that, section 87 (b} of Act ~;~•J.)b~"f 1997 .-.. m~kes ·t(ma·nda.tory th~t the suii;. sho~<¼,instituted wi~hih :9ne year fr(jll the 1 date ·of th~ evertt·~ctnplained ,._·of,.' _In th~ .i~~a.nt case, it was alle.ged tnat the . '. i ! . . .,. . .. . , . ~ tI'ansaction edllplained 0f t'6ok'!r>lace in·:neceml>er1 ' 1995-:~·but the 'scl.t was' ·br.ought. t~ ~pµ.x-;i;.; on .12/1/1998, ;:·· . .. _L ' '. l· ., • • ' . • • • . ,., ' ,. ' { 3) That the l!llleged 1:i'tateme·nt ot ~laim '.agaif.ist the .1st ·Respondent . . {~fe,l)iant) . . . ' did not support arry cause of ,.- :action.; This is Jiecause the plaintiff adm'itted in hl.s plaint to the· effect that the instructions to, _ rer,a.i~ .the 'damaged :.Vv were :given by. the_ l_st· ·: Defendant (;the JL.Ppli~nt heI'e) and not the 2nd ·r~·.:j~. ·. .. .~~~.....~ ........~· :'!.:.,...·-:--...... . ~- --~. . . ··.-~-· .. · · 1)!:ifendant· (Re·spondent)~ '1'heref·ore, it ·wa·s c·ontended., ·...-:~ :1:: ·- >· <: . . . '" 'tlle ])::ireetor General of T~R,~:c~· was· ·wrongly .joined-as, ·a party.•. on 22/7/1998 t~e learned principai Resident Magistrate, Mrs. wambura, upheld the obj¢ ction 'bt:t making an' omru.hus·, order, using the yery ~,ords:- ,... • ;- • .... , I .. • \,. · ., , · ,.'.,: · ;,bje_ction~.ra.ised,:by -Mr~·'.6.ilati is fc:ir'. and . • ., ~ • - <': • ·.. •• ' ~ • • ' '. • - :t ac~ord~ngly g:r;-?nt it as pra-yed ·for:with·:;cos·ts• . ·•.: #"< ~• ;•· -• I • '. ~ .-•• , , , • .•• ··,; : " ~··• .,.L • 'f_. , ..... •••~.: • Previous Crders m~de by this ..court. a,i,e.,?cc.orq-ingl;Y;.- . .· •.· ,!ciif 8¢ VO:: (s~:j • ~;: ~•~;:,;~?;~.;; ~• ', ;• , '. • : · cte8:I'lY, the._ l)rder un1erl1ned· a·bove · is apparently vague; impreci'?e and very . :.-. • • _.. ! . .• _ .•_ • .;' -,-.,.- • • • g~ne;~; ·:··i•{·d~es nbt :$pe,~ify\ihlc1r~rde;ii/~ri p~iii;c~i ·were· declared null . . . ,' ·; ,, . •. . • .. ': ,.;,,r:.:;-. ,;··;,, ~ 1 ..• _,. :- • ·: .,· ·•~· ;_·'- .· and, vo_id, - · and whether the bfder. a:ffecte·d all the parties...tq'·_the . ;•_ ·l , - proceedings. ~ M~r.eo;ef/si~ce Mr{ Gal~ti hatl' 'aske~ fa~e i:~,;~ to stf:Lrce oiii' the suit in respect of the 2-ild defendant ori the account of incd'llpetency (as· shown above J, J., .. ~ • • ,·· t--'.· ,( ·-~ .· :- Jt \,~~ /exP,ected that th~ J1agistrate would h1~~'-·made specific order to that • • • .·.•··} • _. •' • 1 ...... ) • " •. J . \ ... • - . • ~•..,-"'l 1·:_. ,·.• ~- '... ···._I .J-.'• effect. and especially b~cause she tipheid . . . ~..,.,.Mr •.. :aalati,ts . .. p~~liminary point of ·:- . ' - •• !.-• :- .:. ; ~: (: : rt would therefore appear that ·as -th~re was no specific order made ,.d_ ,},~.',.,,,.~•,(., ,•-.,,;, with ~egard to the\ ·z;,,:defendant' ~±-."" N~~:iJnire, 'learned advocate for the f --:;-,(: :· · - ·'· · """· 1 • -~r 1 ·.-,-. Appli~knt t~~~- tlle.-,yievFtful'·t''the "2na·nlfendantAs still a party to the •.· .. :: .···,,'"·•' .:· .,--,\·,,i __·;,. . ·· • _· ·., ·.\.:· ir•·;.:·. • present pro·ceed•fngs• · It is als,o unfortunate that the applicant did serve . : ., . : . ,· .,·~·-~ ·~·' .. __ . _ _ ___ -~ _ .. _,~pparently .,requiring him .~ sunin~n ~ri t~ iD:d -~e_:te_nd~n;t or ·_his advoca.,,telto cdmpent on the present . .. . ... ,••·... ' . . . . . ~= ~- .-. '~_·1 _.... ' ,; . . ,.: . ; ,. :_·.. • : '. .. . .: applicatioJ:l f.~.!'. r~yia_iort♦ :.e~pE;cil:llly.:in 'view ·.• . . . • • • • •. . • •;. :~,' i . ..· ,..~- • • ~t Jhe fac~ t~t he has.~been , . .• • made.1 a. pa.'rty to the,-applJcationr'/Tl±rs_j_13 wrong ·_bec~use any -order U~t would . .. . r.·, ._:_,_ ..,_:.~ .·,:.:t.· ·;.. ·- be -made in relation to the, 2nd defendant_{2n9",Respolldent) would definately, ) ~• •• . •·•v•.r, I;\ . ~ffec.t_ -.,tµ~. ... inte.:r:~sts . of. t.be., 2nd ___~e.f~n~~ntf2nd respondent .. . . . ' : •.• '- :J)espite_ a:· the1:;i~dUS 'aili v~gu~ o~der of 22/7/1998; the trial court I • : ~ _: l : ;.. :·.;,, \::· . : •.•. i°:. :· ;_ ! .- '_' . : ,: ·. • ,.•. ,'.'11,, j .. •: • ,: • _: : made a~~ther_ .or,?:~.r,. ir?: connec~f?n :'"'i-t°h a.~ ~PJ>Jipit_ion f;iled ·cm 13/03/1998 • . ' • ~. J .J . •• ' ' • ." ' • - ' • • •.,'. •• • • • ' ' .- • • .... . • ·-- . ~ . . . . by l> Mr. N3.simtr:e, .1-earn~d ~-e,~V<leg3,te., \TJ:4i(.la:tte.:r'. ~PP_ l.i?ation ts for extension ~ ' .• •. : .... : .:,..('i"'f '.•.,.~ ~·-· ~-----.,-,~·.,·,:; ;, • • :;..,/ •• ·t··,.. :•~ .·..• ,f ••• ')·· of:time to file written•'staterilent of.def-~n6i:/. 1 'j:'hat appli<;:ai;;ion was a!,s~ .. ·). t ....... , ·:·:.:.·!" ;~j~ ,.i:•,r .. _.· '<. i"··· 1t .L.i,~ ·-.,v', • . supported by the applica.ntt',s ~dvocatet • : • • • ·--·.-: ;"•·-":· at.' ,·.,' •.•' s affidavit.. ~:-- .-.- ";:'•,r::,•;·_::-,... '.~- ':; .. : According to that affidavit, the explanat16'r{ g':tvih as "to the· none- l failure to comply with the order of the court to file w.s.,D. by 27/2/1998 C . ' was largely due to the following grounds (as per the affidavitf:- ½.. That the advocate had not obtained the relevant vital information including a discharge voucher·, which information was vital in filing the Writ'l:en Statement of defence. 5. That between 11/2/1998 and 1/3/1998 the ofr'ice:r of ·the Applicant, vho was in possession of the said . . . Vital information, one Catherine Magodi, was away on official safari. 6. That on 27/2/1998 the learned advocate had intended to ask for extension of time to file the i-isD, but . . was unable to do so, as the case had a:!-rea.dy be~n ·.• a ~ for another mention on 27/03'/199_8 ----.- and that was before the advocate came to the district court from the High Coµrt where he had another matter.. 7. • That 'failure to present the w:ritten statement nf ··•defence. was riot due to the advocatet s :irtagvertance, • ·7. ~ ..... But with respect, it is strange that the above grounds have not been raised in the inst.ant application. The two affidavits, i.e. the one before the lowe:.' court and the _preserit one before this court, do not speal<:·t~e-~ame language• ··-.'-,: '•.: This raises dqµbt as whether the deponent is credibie in his two different statements. But all in all, since the proceedings in the lo~er court are ... ·1 hopelessly in a mess, coupled with the va)~-l\eness of \he ~~d~r as already shown above, I think justice will be injured if the pioceedings in the lower court are not strengthened up by cnusing a proper hearing and the parties give:nf1lll; :opportunity of being heard. The lower court has to make it clear as whether there is a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant/Respondent; and if there is none then a specific order neede to be made by ordering the removal of the 2nd defendant frdll the caseJ 'Ihus, in the light of my considered observations above,' I would allow the present appiication for revi~ion, not in the light of Mr; Nasimirets submission but on the strength of the reasons T have given. I accordingly objecti,9n rai,sed, by_ tif.•. ,Galati, ;le-0.J·ned. advocate. for the. 2:n9- .d~fe.ndant cuJIJ 2nd Respondent, but with a direction that the same preliminary objection ·J.::· •.. be heard 1::>y '.. . another . .. RE?siden.t-Magistrate., . _.:.; .. - .. ....... , . . ... ~ , . . , • ' Sirnilary, the ex-parte judgement c.::r. ¢rder~.by the. 'lower '~cch.ttt~-- and' rlrw subsequent orders made thereto the lower court, s proceedings are hereby vacated. The .effect of this order is to .. reS;tore,-,the st3tus· quo of tt'il ''t'h.0 ji{rties to the ·proceedings as if no .· : . ,. _.r. .. . . ex-pirfei judgement had been ordered, ·. or any order a~ all tending to affect _ parties' rights any of the /_ to the pro.ceedin.,gf. ·_The •applicant-respondent should file his written Statement of Defence within one month from the date of this :• \ I ·· .. i ._·-.::;-- _r·:-··, _ .Rw;J.;ing., . oth~r prqcedures to be_ followed by the. par-ties after the 1st ,·,-;r· . . ..... Def!"lndant (Applic-e,nt) ha:s filed his written: statement of defence, on or : . :- •·\ .. . . ·. . .. . . • ,,-:.~_·:•.-.: "i . .-, i· .. -"- before 19/10/200), should be regulated. by the trial rBSident ma~istrate _in accqrdapce :··('•. .. . .,,,.._,-. with . the Civil Procedure . codet 1966. ,., Accordingly, it is so ordered and I make no order as to costs, i.e. each party to bear his AT M,JANZA. JUDGE At Mwanza, 19/09/2001 in the absence of .... •:·-.·· the parties. A. JUDGE 19/09/2001 : . ··-•' . . . ..' ;' •··'