20170221 TZHC Arusha

:i IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY] ' AT ARUSHA I DC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2016 · MESODET BOARD OF TRUSTEES ............................. ~ ..... APPELLANT VERSUS MWENYEKITI WA JADI NA MILA ZA KABILA LAWAMERU ............................................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT DR. M. OPIYO, l The appellant, MESODET Board of Trustees being aggrieved by the ruling delivered by the trial court preferred appeal to this court on the following grounds. 1. That the trial court erred in law and facts to mislead the justice and ordered the Appellants that it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, failing to disclose the cause of action, and that, matter related to land dispute. 2. That the trial court failed to order the Respondent to file the response and Appellants prayed to be supplied those written submission from Respondent with failure till pronounced the ruling on 16/12/2015. 1 • 3. That Appellants are not after land cause of action, Respondent invaded the administration of Board of Trustees while knew that MESODET is a registered institution under Cap 375 and deals with development education, and health of all residents of MERU, all tribes, religion and race. Respondent deals with customs of Wameru tribe only therefore Appellants prayed before the trial court to restrain doing anything because these are two different institutions which has no relationship refer annexure marked "A". 4. That trial magistrate erred in law and fact to dismissed the certificate of urgency claiming that was not filed or fees were not paid, while all was done properly "Refer annexure marked "A2" and we file Civil Appeal in this honourable court No. 53/2015 which also said was not filed in ruling see Annexure marked."3." 5. That Appellants are the legal persons as are registered by the Ministry concerned and operating legally "see annexure marked "A4" and that Karangai Secondary School is one of· the assets of Appellants under registration No. (S.504 AND Examination centre no. S.701). 6. That all employees working at the Appellants secondary were employed by the MESODET Board of Trustees and not Respondent thus Respondent cannot run the school, and that, we ,don't claim any land in dispute at all. 2 r I I l i Both parties were unrepresented in this appeal. The appeal was argued by I , way of written submission and both parties accordingly complied with the filing schedule set by the court in agreem~nt with the~. i However in the course of composing JuJment, upon i I Jen perusal of the ' documents on record, the court came atross a kind of irregularity that is I , . . worth dealing with first before disposing the appeal. Ir the heading of the 1 Memorandum of Appeal, reference is made to the f~ct th~t this appeal originate from civil case No. 74/2015, Abplication No.; 46/2015 cind misc. l Application no. 46/2015 and Misc. Applic~tion No. ·59/2015 at the District : I , , , ! Court of Arusha/Arumeru. Going through the grounds of appeal it they I only concern the decision in civil case No.\74/2015 for i,vhich judgment has i been equally attached. That means the other applications referred in the I , . . heading are not involved in this appeal although the he~ding reflects so. 'I ' I ' I I What can be concluded from the above is that the ap~~af before me is an 1 omnibus appeal attempting to appeal against several uhre.lated decision of the court that were not jointly determineJ during trial.\ In Law this is not attainable.There should be a separate app~al for each ~pp.lication that was separately determined. This is because ea!h appeal reqLires determination on its own merits, instead of being im'broperly refe~red to in another I l appeal. In the cases of Daudi Lengiyeu V. Dr. David Es Shungu, Civil I Application No. 28/ 2015 CA unreported and Bible Hamed Khalid \ . I I Vrs Mohamed Enterprises' Ltd and Two others, Civil ·Application \ I. .. 1 I I 3 11 1 l ' I no. 6/2011(both unreported), the court based on the same omnibus • principle to struck out the applications for being incompetent before it. Equally, based on the same Principle, an appeal combining imore than one 1 decision is defective and incompetent before the court. It t herefore struck 1 out with no order as to costs as the issueI that disposed the , matter was raised by the court suo motu. Order accordingly. I (Sgd) DR. M. OPIYO, t JUDGE 21/2/2017. I hereby certify this to be a true copy of the original. \ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ARUSHA 4