20020812 TZCA Dar es Salaam

(, c, ! ,. .~ t,' .:..___ .....,,, -· i IN 'l'HE COURT OF i.PPEi..L OF Th.NU.NL~ (.Q._(?£-11-1: _F,J.t\~rL.NI, Job-~.. LUG11.KIN9nt,1. ;J 03\. '·· ~c~)Ir~<;)SO, ~-£~ .) ~ CIVIL .i.PPE..-'..L NO. 60 OF 1999 . I. l,.. -~ .. : t;~.-:!, B"••'~'I",··1··"-'J.:J.L:JJ. ·~-!!\·1 M/S FIDA.HUSSEIN & COMP1iliY LTD. o • • i.PPELLiiNT AND ... P..bSPOND::1'N T (J,pp0al from tho Ruling of the High Court of Tanzania at Do.res Se.lc,.arn) dated tha 23rd da.y of April, 1998 in c~vilA.case J'\O• }?3 ?f~1998 HULING . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ~.•.v:,..:» 'rhe rcsponcont, •ranzanin Harbours ;\uthority, filod a notice cf preliminary objection snying tho.t the appoal is incompot,:mt and not maintainable in law for viola.ting suction 9 of tho Bankruptcy Ordinm1co (Cap. 25) and 2.lso bec::mso tho appellant did not obtnin leave to appeal against the ruling of the High Court. Bo fore us ,•fore Dr. Lngo lo Mc.punda, L ... :trnod counsv 1, for th0 resp on dent end for th0 ::i.ppe lk,n t, ~t/S Fidahusse in & Co. Ltd. , was \ Prof. Issa Shivji, lc.::trn~d ~0tdvocato. Dr. t-bpuncb ab-:J.ndonod the second leg of tho pr,.,lim:in.-::,.ry objc,ction, that is, the f:bs,mco of le2.vc to ::i.pp<Jal from tho ruling of the High Court. \:Jo think ho did so rightly bocnuso the objection w:1s devoid of any merit,. ••. /2 , 2 As for tho first limb, Dr o Ifopunclo. pointed out tlut the etppdltmt is a specified public corporation under GN 543/93 of 22nd l~ugust, 1997. He went on to show tho.t a spccific.:1tion order places a specified public corporation unclor the receivership of the Prcsiclontfol P:1.rctstntal Soctor Reform Cwmizsfon (PSRC) and that brings the Bnnkruptcy Ordinii.nce, (Cap. 25) (hcrcinci.ft8r rofenocl to simply o.s the Ordinnncc) into operation. Ho submitted further that court procccdine,n nsninst such n corporation require loetve of tho court under s. 9 of the Ordinnncee Dr. Mnpunda contended that the appollo.nt did not obb.in such leave, He then cited n nurnbc.:r of authorities holding ttnt where loc. ve i:3 required but h:w not been obt.:d.ncd them the matter is struclc out for being incompetent• Dr. M2,punclo.. answe;r_ecl tb0 Court th2.t tl10 respondent rc. isocl n s:i.J:1i12,r obj0ction in tho HiGh Court but th:,t no docisiun wo..s mo.de. Profo Sbivji 1 wtwn ho tuuk thr:: floor, started by contrc.dicting this answer. Ho concGded th,:ct lco.ve w:IB 0110 of the tbr0"' grounds of preliminary obje:ction in the: High Courto Howovcr 1 Prof. Shivji pointed out tao.t though M.J'IG_'.N0 1 J,. did not determine tl10.t c-bjection, tho le:,,rne:d juc.lge ~n.s prcpnred tc g:c,-:i.;1t lc:::ve to correct tho defoct should the objection bo susted.nod. However, the loarncd trial judge wns of th;:; firrn view th.7-t tho mc,ttor w::ts disposable en tho issue of limitationo Prof. iShivji subnitte:cl thnt in such o. situation the respondent ought to h<"WG cross~c.ppcc:.lod rc:thor thon r,'.lil3e n. proliminetry objection onco a::/::tin. Wo b(Jtter let tho 10.'.l.rncci judge spoo..k for himself: ••• /3 r. • .., 3 In its pl0D.dinss tho tlo foncbn t h.s,s t.::1kon thrt,G prolirnin.~try objections tc, the suit. But I will Lloetl with just 0110 of them, ns I consider tl1::1t if tl1ect objection is overruL:d the pL:i.intiff should be gre..nted lectvc to rn:J..ko o.pproprinte a.111cmc1monts in rcle.tion to tbe other obj0ctions, if those cb jc:cti,_;ns ;.u:•c VD.lid, as tiiey c.pp;;c.:~r to be. ' The learned jut.lee observed, obit2r, thot tho other two objection:::;, incluJ.ing the requirs;;m1;;nt cf s.ae:king le:wo to file th•J suit in the high Court I o.ppeiru..:l to be vnlid but were not fa.t::.l o.ncl th2,t thcy cc,uld be, rectified :..--..nd would not be used to tormin:Jte tho suit• It i£. crystn.l cL~r,r to us thrtt hcd the kc:rncd juclgo disrdssod. the issue .'.)f lirnitr~tion, h;.; would. ho.ve gr::mt8cl lc.:-.ve to vn:encl the defects.. In thc"1-t c.::cse Wt: think th:::.t th0re is m0rit in the subini..Gsion of Prof_.. Shivji th..::t tr1e rcspondunt ought to b:we crcss=nppcttkd., Paragrr~ph (b) of sub~s0ction ( 2) of sccticm 5 e,f the ~~ppelb,te Jurir:diction i.ct, 1979 (horeinti.ftor.r.:.:forrocl to '1S tho i-..ct) provides thc.t; :Gxcept with the le,:..vo of tho Gourt of .:-.ppoal, a. party who docs net 0ppc.::i.l ngninst n preliminary decree sbc.11 not c1.isputo its corr\:ictness in 2.n ;::tppual a.gn:i.nst thG fir11:.1.l decree• The re:sporn.l,jnt ought to h'lvo crc-ss•-•.3.ppeo.lcd :1.1:;;.d..nst th:i.t but ho did not ;:i_nd is now trying, without cur lcavo, to revive tho m;:..ttor thro1 1 c;h th0 b~-:!ck door, as it wore. ifo ;:cro L'f the settled vfow that thjs infrin 6 o;i12nt of section 5 (2) (b) uf tb;:; ,\ct is sufficiont to c.1kpcso of this pr.aliminary objoctiono .... /4 .. ") Q • f' .I 4 Di~'l'f:D nt Dl.R ES Sf..L;J.iM this 12th day of i,ugust, 2002, , A.S .L .R:Jt11,DHJi.Nl K.8 .K .LUG...KINGIP..1. ...... ~ ....~-- JU.:;TICE - OF n.PPE,tL . ..,_ ~ JUbTICE OF l..PPE1\L .........__,,....,..,,.r:.~·~ I cGrtify tbat this is c.1 true copy of too original., DEPU'l'Y P.ZGISTR.R - - ~ · - · e·· · e·r t::' / ·\