MUSSA ZUBERI SALUM VS SHABANI RASHID MNYEKETIA MISC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB-REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 21005 OF 2024 (Arising from the decision of the District Court of Rufiji at Rufiji in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2023) MUSSA ZUBERI SALUM………………..……………………….…………APPLICANT VERSUS SHABANI RASHID MNYEKETIA………………………………………….RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 4/12/2024 Date of Ruling: 13/12/2024 A.A. MBAGWA, J. This ruling seeks to determine the competence of the present application. The applicant herein has moved the Court by way of chamber summons made under the provisions of Section 361 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act [Cap. 20 R.E 2022] and section 14(1) and (2) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap. 89 R.R 2019] for the following prayers: One, that the Honourable 1 Court may be pleased to grant leave for an extension of time within which to file an appeal out of time in the District Court of Rufiji at Rufiji or in the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es salaam against the decision of the Primary Court, Two, that the Honourable court be pleased to set aside the dismissal order of the District Court and give direction, as to which court the applicant, if the extension of time to appeal out time is granted, should file his appeal since the District Court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal once dismissed by the same court and Three, that the Honourable Court be pleased to grant any other order/s and relief that it deems fit and equitable to grant. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit. Upon lodging this application, the applicant made efforts to serve the respondent to no avail. Having considered the obtaining circumstances in particular, the fact that the applicant is incarcerated, on 21st October 2024, upon prayer by the applicant, I ordered the hearing of the application to proceed ex parte. The applicant argued the application in person. However, while composing the ruling on the merits of the application, I noted some legal issues, namely omnibus prayers. I thus invited the applicant to 2 address the Court on the pointed anomalies. The applicant, being a layman and unrepresented had nothing to address the court on the raised issue. It is against this background that I am obliged to determine whether the application is tenable before this Court. It is a settled law that an omnibus application is not permissible in law unless the prayers sought are kindred. See the cases of Rutagatina C. L. vs the Advocates Committee and Clavery Mtindo Ngalapa, Civil Application No. 98 of 2010 (unreported) and Rutunda Masole vs Makufuli Motors Limited, Misc. Labour Application No. 79 of 2019, HCT at Mwanza (unreported). In the case of Rutunda (supra), this Court held; ‘The condition precedent for applicability, of this rule is that the application should not be diametrically opposed to each other or preferred under different laws, complete with different timelines and distinct considerations in their determination’ Looking at the chamber summons in the application at hand, it is common ground that the second prayer for setting aside a dismissal order of the 3 District Court of Rufiji is quite distinct from a prayer for an extension of time and it calls for completely different considerations. Thus, the inclusion of the second prayer in this application renders the whole application omnibus hence incompetent before this Court. As such, it is liable to be struck out. On the above account, I hold that the application is incompetent for being omnibus and for that reason, it is hereby struck out. It is so ordered. The right of appeal is explained. A.A. Mbagwa JUDGE 13/12/2024 COURT: The Ruling has been delivered on this 13th day of December 2024 in the presence of the applicant in person and in the absence of the respondent. A.A. Mbagwa JUDGE 13/12/2024 4