20121015 TZHC Mwanza

. - , - • . ~ ,· ,: . ~p: . - --~ .- .- __ . '.- _, ..... iN lHEHIGH OOURrOFTANZANIA (LAND DIVISON) MWANZA · MISJ3.1ANBJUS LAND CAS:APPEALNO. 19 OF 2907 (From the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Mwanza District at Mwanza in land Olse Appeal No. 50 of 2009 and Original Ward . Tribunal of Nduruma Ward in Application No. 4 of ~009) MWEB:S-IA. WHUTA ................... ~ ............. ~ ......................... :APPELLANT \/ERl.JS ~ t ( O NAMAIA.. ............................................................... :RESPONDENTS I I ' I I RULING ' I MWAMl3EG8..E J: When this appeal was called on for hearing on27.02.2008, the ~spondent did ' not appear. Omsequently, the Appellant snatched the golden opportunity and prayed to proceed ex parte. The court granted Appellant's prayer. a, that very date, the Appellant made yet· another prayer; he. prayed to argue the ' I I I I I I I appeal by way of_ written submissions which prayer was also granted. For reasons that are not dear to me, the appellant -has not filed the written submissions to date. This is the fifth time the appeal is fixed for mention and the appellant has never appeared. The record before me ·speaks loudly and dearly that the Appellant has not filed the submissions as ordered by the court on 27.02.2008; more than four years and seven months ago. I take it that the appellant is no longer interested to prosecute this appeal. There is a line of authorities in this juris:fiction that establish that failure to file written submi55ions is tantamount to failure to prosecute or defend the case [836 Maria R.Jgarabamu Vs National Hawing Corporation and Another, Ovil Appeal No. 32of 1996(HC) (unreported)]. Courts have all along been insistent that court orders must be respected and complied with so that justice is administered in a smooth manner. Ole such case is Perpetua H. Wrigini & another Vs Dr Msemo Diwani Bakari HC Land Appeal No. 3 of 2005 HC(unreported) in which Lugazia, J held: "... up to the writing of this judgment the appellants are yet to file their submiS9ons. This is a very 2 .. ' rerious omision, which cannot be condoned. -This court has had occasions to express its displeasure I and made parties on default to suffer the ' consequences 7he hard &and adopted by the cou,rt I ' I is due to the desire to prated. its integrity for, :it I ' would be an exposure to public ridicule if its orders ' I ' I are disregarded with impunity without any I I ' And His Lordship went on: "It has been held by this court on very many occasions that the pradice of filing submisions t,as I I been equated. to non appearance or want: of I prosecution - ree Hidaya Zuberi vs &Jngwe ' I Mbwana FC Ovi/ Appeal No. 98 of 2003 fl?S\A (unreportedt'. (8nphasis not mine). [fee also Said ' Slekhan Vs Radhia Hassan Land Appeal No. 2 of I 2005 DS\J1 (unreported) and cases cited therein]: ' 3 · A more serious note was echoed by this court in Athumani Kungubaya & Another Vs PSRC & rra, Miscellaneous Ovil Appeal No. 1 or 2001 HC (unreported) in-which Luanda, J (as he then was) held: N... court orders should be complied with for the betterment c?f administration of justice. To allow a party to do things contrary to court orders not only shows disrespect to the courts but afro creates chaos to· the entire process of administration of justice. That thing should not ~e allowed to occurn. [see also: &iyamba .bhn Vs Adili Bankcorp, Ovil Case No 146 of 2000 HC (unreported)]. !:peaking of the importance of litigants to follow up their cases, in Tanganyika Motors Ud Vs bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji, Ovil Application No. 65 of 2001 (unreported), R:lmadhani JA (as he then was) had this to 53.y: 'J'.\ serious appellant would follow up his application and would not stay put. C1herwire uns;rupulous 4 . ". . -~· . :... ·:__:, . ~- ~~:; .-.... ~'-~ . . _, ~>--~ ;,'"_ -:,.·:~:~-:- .,. ,.:.:_: .. .,.,,,.,. . __ :· __ ::··_.· .' A more serious note was echoed by this· court in Athumani Kungubaya & Another Vs PSRC & TTQ., Miscellaneous Ovil Appeal No. 1 or 2001 HC (unreported) in which Luanda, J (as he then was) held: '~.. court orders should be complied with for the: betterment of administration of justice. To allow a: party to do things contrary to court orders not only ' shows disrespect to the courts but afro create~ chaos to the entire process of administration of jufiice. 1hat thing should not be allowed to occur". ' [see also: &lyamba ..bhn .Vs Adili Bankcorp, Ovil Case No 146' of 2000 HC (unreported)]. ~eaking of the importance of litigants to follow up their cases, !n Tanganyika Motors Ud Vs bahadura/i Ebrahim 9Jamji, Ovil Application N,o. 65 of 2001 · (unreported), R:lmadhani JA (as he then was) had this to say: '~ serious appellant would follow up his applicatior, and would not stay put. O:herwiS:J uns;rupulous '' ' 4 I ' parties would ure the appellate process as a rure for employing delaying tadics and deny ruccesiul parties the enjoyment of their awards 11 I share the same sentiments with His Lordship in the above quotation. In the instant case, the Appellant was ordered to file his written submissions by 21.03.2008. He has not complied with this order to date. One can reasonably argue that the Appellant lost interest in this appeal long time ago. If the opposite were true; in the light of the Tanganyika Motors case (supra), it was expected he would be following up his appeal. It seems to me that this appeal has been occupying space in our registry shelves for no justified cause at all. For failure to present written submission for more than 55 months, as a!ready alluded to hereinabove, the Appellant might have lost interest in his appeal. C.Onsequently, the appeal must be, and it is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. It is dismi55ed with costs. 0 DATIDat MWANZA this 15th day of October, 2012. ~vt;--- JC M. MWAMBB:',8 E JJDGE 5 0