20020306 TZHC Mbeya

IN THE HIGH (X)URT OF TAI-iZANIA NISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2001 S/ $T }'01illLl m--JAKYUSA ••••••••••• 0 • •• • • • • • • RESPOr!DZN'.i:' JUDGMENT ---~ MACY.ANJA J. These proceedings originate from·Civil C.:i.se No& 26 of 1995 of the Resident Magistrate's Court at Vibcya in which the respo"1dcnt in this ' appeal clcinis a sur:i of ShsQ9.,8oo,ooo.oo for the less of tho life of his thild 1 Tur.iwi_ki:negc Fcrdic:. 1 who was killed in a 1:iotor vehicle accident; He imJ?leadecl Go~frey .::ihuo .md Sekcr.!cc Hwn!cyorr:.:i as r•roprictor ru1d driver 1 respectivcly 1 _of th0 motor vehicle thr--.t to~k the life of{f'\€.:pla.intiff's child. In thdr written ct:1t.::ment ol' ~efenco the defenckµ~ts ~vcrred in paragraph three, j._nt~--y.~ 1 thnt:- :c3 •••• t).;e l~cfo12<..:..::.u1ts states (sic) th.:!.t vide tb.; contr.::i.ct between the: fir,:.t. ~lfond..ant ,md the !':-:tionu.J. Jnsm·.mco Corporaticn U:e lcit t")r is li~b-le to p:iy h. ·.the evq1t th::: defond~ts ::\ro f.:::-..i;-1d li?..ble to tne plaintiff :md- 1.3 ::mch the !fo.ticn:-.1 _1nsur~1cc Corporq.tion is .pr:occ.ssinr., LO p.:iy -.:\.s cor;;pcn:5~ti.:,~, a ::-....:r. of Shs.5 1000 1000.00 in f;)..vour c-f th(! plaintiff.;; The trial court rc::i.d AA aC:.:;·,ission of liability in p.:i.ro.;;ro.ph 3 of the .• written stuter.1ent of <lefencc :mcl. 1 as a rcsult 1 procecc.bd to pass judgment on admission for thE:: ;,iaiutiff v1he:11 Hr • .l·.kumbC;·1 lco.rnc<.l coun$ for the pln.:intiff 1 prayed for ju<l3r:1ent. Thereafter the plaintiff I no11 clecrec- holde:r I rrocc<::,~(•c to reQliso his right::; hy applying t.o cX3cute the decree. 2 Court against the c!ecree. l}.'h.0 appeal.· that was loc:oed \\13.S i tsclf dismissed as well by my brother hwipcJJO, J. Till then the Hatic,n,:>..l. Insuru..11ce Corpora- tion -was not a p.:u-ty tc th~ 2Jroccedin::s~ so the decree co!il.d not be executed Sns.,300,00J.OO in sctisf~r.tio:-1 cf wh,lt she prcba.bly co!!sidcred to be the extel1t of her liability., In the meuntime £....'1. apr,lic.?:tion for rcvie-.., of ·;;he dec:.·~c was made as a •.·resulfbf·'which'.thc dcc'rce was varied from Shs~5,O00 1000-0:) to a sum of ··: Shs~300;000~00; this Court ordcririg that.the r1;mai.ning sur.i of : Shs~4, 7oo;coeioo -a'ld cily other pending matters bt: fo~l~t out on the merit ;·, : . before 'th~- suBd:tcl.in.:'1.te c:ourt •. l~ ·;;•,rti~ulm-,' it ~-S or:dered that:._ . · 11 'l'he ·pleadings revert oc.,-::1<: to th~·. Distri~t Ccu'·t in . r~spect of ail 'other l:lattcr:=; COV1:i.~~d iri. th~. pl.:tint ru·:d I clir;;;ct tha-. · N~:Uc::shc.llbe ..... ·. joined ;.'..s a. thi_rd ;pc.rty -~iq .?.s . t\: .... ·-. . . . . . thi;rd: . ·• defendcll_lt who shi!J.l be ser-,cd. foi• orci.;.;!'s wit.h t:le copies oi···t~-,pltint: ~d written sto.te~;ent' oi de:~nce of· the defcndanti.;.- ·arid .the ·thi1.. d p-tr·ty llot:rc·e·.u__ ·· Soon .'o.ftcr th0 .::.tove crtl.::r w~s i:1~<: th,1 Ibtio:ncl..' ln.s\:.I'~"'l ,c C:)rpor.:i.tion C.Orpcr..:.tion. b~c!:iuse it w.-:.s -~ specified r,0rporc:>._tioi1 which. couid -only be s-uca "~th le<1:vc of this ~urt. '..J:'n~ le:trncd. trio.l Rcddcir.t lno,istrate refused - - -- the rrelim.nary. objectior:s 1 h0l<linG th~t !l!:; \v.'lS bound b( .:the, or-dcr-of this Court i (1-i wipopo 1 J.) • It ~1as by re.,.,.son of the i'oregoi11g cver!tS t'hnt this ~f!pc3.l was lodged in "'idch tl.ir~c grounds h::.vc b-::c..:r-. r:d5co., th.'.:t is tc .::::.~, :- c-:,erruling the prolir:iin:iry ,,bjc,ctions; 2. t.u:\t the l~necl ~,e.i=;ic.<.:,nt h:tu:.strc.tc ~.:isi.nt~rp:·ctc--i ti1c ruling of thi~ too.rt, !'AW3-pof0, J. . in ( IX:) C·.i..-,, ll I 3 3. tha.t the le irncd tri~ Resident l{agistr.:-.te erred in ignorir~ statutory provisions that ~rere cited before him., Mr. hkUr.Jbe 1 learned :•:,.cr1sel for the rcsrion6.c::=it 1 c:cntends th~t the .• I nsur.:mco:.: appeal by the 1-btion."?.l ·~.:,ry..or:=1.tion is not p.r:::r,,crly be fore: this L ., to the proceedings it 01.1;:;.ht to h:ive appe:1.lcd to the Court of ii.ppe.:!.l. It is theref9:-e, surprisin5 thc~t N.r.c. should be nge;ricvcd by the order of the -,rial court. which was r.i:.i.de ia o.)cipli:mce ·.;.:.th "i:he order of this Court, There is no·doubt tlnt there is a-lot of fc1·ce in l·tr.· Mkumbe 1 s argument4 For· it is clearly obvious that- the:, crdE;r was made by this Co.:.rt nnd 1 to that. extent 1 the tri~u .>.)urt had nothin~ h, c:o but to implement it! But, in r..y vi<H-1 1 the 01:dcr cocld only be i□.:;:·l•:mentcd in conformity w.ith_the:l~v,s of this cc1.:ntry. f\s _it h45 bcer:-c'.ed.clcd b nwne:rous cases of this Court 1 some cf w!1::.ch wcr~ cited b0forc the tri:!l Court 1 as a ~ f i e d ·corpcr~tion 1-:.I.Cc could net, be sued wJ.css an applic.'.ltion for _ leave was mo.cc and_ lc!3.ve: !·!::i.ving b::c•n jrr.n~d. & rb,m cy brother Judge ordered that N. I.C~ ho join•.:c: to ti:t: -r()CfedinJ3 ~e. ha.cl the, provisions of s. 9(1) of the Ba..'1.la-uptcy Ordinc:-..ncc in :'!lir:d .::...11cl ~.t W4\S l:.p::,n the plaintiff to comply wi. th that orde:::i· by first app~yi.ng fo~· lc~eve ~ I sc..y tl:iis because there is nothing in -the· -crckr of U9-t/ Court- which su;§est.~ - ~~=-~-~-t tli-spcnses · ·. i.i.tr1 the_ ·provisiQns of ::;<:_c;tjon _9 (1) of_ th{;!.·?-,,.n1:rupt~y Unlin.:mce, C.:!p. 25 • . -- ------··········· -•· ...... _ . -- - ··-·· ------=----------------- __-_ ... --~-------- . -------· .:.. r· h"Jld I therefore 1 th3. t ~.;10 tri:~l -~ourt - slippcc. into e:1Tor wDe:n it declined to -.ipholc. the: prclinri.n~:r_y ob je ctic,:is. l-'ir. 1·:kumbe h::.s cu.so r,i::dc the point that the co·.;.rtE in this country nre U;,: Ci vii f:.0cttl\1.(e. Cc de. qe.ne.tG\Uj !>p€oJ<i~· 1~nd o?tlt\Sll ttlf\n-Vt l,,e, facltod c-n this nrgu:;1(!nl. ~~w.:?vcr 1 thgt pov1cr uill. be e.xercis~~bjcct \ to l~gislc.tion t~t :nny "(e.iuirc the fuJ.filment of c e . r J ; c u ~ n 1 ., \ ,.. .J '· - ~ ~ . 1 - i -""'" ,..,., 0 1 ,, i l"l.-1 r 4 abrogation of clear statutory provisions which rr.oke it a requirement that / leave must be sought and h.1.d first_. The ::.•eqrircm~nt for leave must be J'. read into the order of this Court in crc:er to h~ve, it imn:ie:mented.- , ~ ~en he co1mncnccd his subr.dssions 1-ir, t•ikur:ibc 1 le,:rn<:(! counsel 1 contended that the rulinG .:..ppca.l..:c ::1t_;=.i.inst is .'ln inte:rlocutcry -or.:!cr 'r.-hich i::; not a.ppellable under Ordc:r YJ, :1.s re::.d \-r.ith section 7!~ oi the ...,ivil Procedure Code, Mr. Mbisc, leo.:'nt)d counsel, gives a ri vnl proposition to the e f fe-et that the ruling is appellcblc in as much as it is in the form of a decree- { that is appellable in t,.m:1s of section 70 (1) of the. Civil Procedure Code. I 'oove read the order of the tri-:u. court which is ir.ipugned in this appeal. Mr~ Dyamsobcra, 1e~ed Resident•Mugistre.te;held the view that his . forum court w.is. no_t. ~- prop~r L at which the decision of the High Court could be challenged I In terms he st3ted th:it he lacked jurisdict.ion. Th:it 1 . by any de~.cription I ceJ1not be scid to be o.n interlocuto::-y order. It is M · order that effectually declared that th~ tri~l court had no jurisdiction. It \,;as· therefore final in n:'.lture w~ich bec~UJ-:> appellablE! U."lder nection 70 (1) of the Civil Procedure Co~~, I \'iOttld, upon the foregoing ob::.erve.tions 1 ru.low the appeal as relates -· ·-·-· ·-·-- --·--···-·· ·-···-···---------- \. to the j6ind;;;-;~~--~'i~-::ional InsurMce Corpor:1tion .:-:.& ~ third pz.rt)~ _______ --....- ·••-·•....- -- ,. -····..···--- any other co.pacity in as_ much -~ the plaintiff clid nc-i~;;;;;i;~ill;;;; ction_ 9 (1) of the B.:mkruptcy Ot<h~~-ncc. · Atcor-di~gly the appeal-·is' ~lowed. It ·- ···----- ---------- ---- is c.irectcrl' that· the .re.coyd of thE: tri~~ cou:rt _be rcr::i ttcd to that coirt - _ .:.. to coi1tinux: wi.th the- ~rial b·etween the· -orie;ih~ parties to the suit. The Certi fj ~d true, copy oi the ori;;innJ. Jwk,-,,._ .... ~