20170601 TZHC Arusha

i, ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF ARUSHA] I I I AT ARUSHA I CIVIL REVISION NO. 10 OF 2017 (Originating from Arusha Urban Primary coJrt 14/2015 District Court of Arusha Misc- Civil Appl. Nol 11/2016) NAI ELISHA. ■■ • ■■ • ■■ •••••• ■ •••••••• ■■ I ■■ I ••••• I . I • • • • I I I I■ 111 ■ I. ■■■•■■ .APPLICANT I I VERSUS REUBEN ABRAHAM MOLLEL. ...... .l.l ....................... RESPONDENT I RULING I Date of last Order: 01/06/2017 Date of Ruling: 01/06/2017 S.C. MOSHI,J. A complaint was lodged to this Court by an elderly lady, 65 years of I age NA! ELISHA MOLLEL. She requested the Court to intervene and decide on the regularity and correctness of :the proceedings and decisions in respect of Urban Primary Court Civil Case No. 14/2015. She generally I complained against a right to be heard in her application for extension of time to file an appeal in the District! Court. She among other things complained that, she had a Christian mlrriage way back in 1968. However I in 2015 her husband filed Civil Case 14/2015 whereby divorce was granted and division of Matrimonial properties ~hich she felt that the division was not done fairly. She now wants to appe~Il out of time. She attached copies 1 t- ' of the Judgment which were is~ued t9 her and t9 h~r husband. Th~ ~9pie$ shows that the judgment was certified on different dates. She believed that she has good cause for extension of dme as her copy was certified an~ ~iven to her one month and a half after the date 9f the decision while her ' spouse's was c~rtifiErd and given to him one day after the decision; on 15/06/2015 and 30/04/2015 respectively. ' Her efforts to apply for extension of time wasn't fruitful as the f application was dismissed for non-appearance. She applied for extension of time ~o set asi9e th~ dismissal ord~r and for setting aside the dismissal order l vide Miscellaneous Civil Application No. t7/2Q17. However the same \f'/aS stryc;k out for being 9mnibus. Considering the whole scenario; ¢specially variation of date of the i trial Court ju<;tgment there is likely hood of ~he application for e~tension of time to svcc;eed. Tre complainant des~rves a chance to be heard <;m an application for extension of time. It is not always that an omnibus applic;ation is fatal hence rendering it j to be stru~k out. In the case of 1MIC TANZANIA LIMITED VS 1 • I MINI~TER FOR LABOUR AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER, Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2904, Court of Appeal unreporte{), Paragraph 9, the Court held inter alia thus; I I '~ ... Therefore, unless there is a specific law barring the combination of more than one prayer in one Chamber Summons, the Courts should encourage the procedure rather than thwart it for fanciful reasons. We wish to emphasize, a/I the same, that each case must be I ' decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts'( I In the present case, it is my view that the law did not bar the omnibus application; even the prayers sought could be given by the Court as the Court has jurisdiction to give them. In the [ cited case MIC TANZANIA LTD (supra) where the law doesn't forbid and circumstances allows, hearing more than one application together will prevent multiplicity of unnecessary applications which would have been conveniently combined. The Cowrts time will be eqlrJally wasted in dealing with such applications. That said I quash the decision which was made on 11/08/2016. I set aside any orders made therefrom. I order that the application proceed with hearing before a different Magistrate with competent jurisdiction. 3