19920901 TZHC Dar es Salaam

- -rHt lfb~ \ IN Tl:E :uac OOURT OF TANUALITIA . . . . AT JJJ!.i-1. . .E?. SALA,AM MISCELLANEOUS crvIL CASE No, 97 QA'._l:2.2Q. OMA.RI ATIIUMANI 13.AICT'T.AR. t.• • o • ~-• • • •" • o.• • • • • • "• • • ~ "~,; o" b • ,.APPLICA.lfT ve:rsus KARIM .ALLY :t--IDIIID....... , •• , ... , ,. o ~ • • .... ~ • ... ., •••• ., o a.• ,i,. • .iRElSPOHDEINT RULING This is ~ applice:aon £~ leave to appeal out of tim(, to Jlihis Oeurb. The !'ea.sons for t.11.0 dola¥ in lodging the appGal are tl:at t:.10 applicant, after losing tho ~aso in the 1lietriot Ooi.:it, wen·li to sook assistance from the Presicl.aut ts Commission of Enc:,:u:i.ry _. Ile (iJ.so :::r'c2:t-Od -~;:a;'.; ho was not mentally stable and he kept on goiJ.1g to va:d.otts go-1orn- me11t offices thereby getti11g late to appeaJ.. IIG a,lso said .i11. oonolu.sion tha:~ he had no :relative an.cl ho was being Victimized._ In :reply, M:r Mbuya., lea.niod oounsal for tho ;ttespondent ,;nvo c b:riof history of this case,. IIo sa:i.ci. that the applicant was the dafeidaJ.1t in BHf s Co'l'l.Zt civil Case No. GO •f 19G9 which was a, summary suit.. T.1.lO appli- cant had to get leave to c1ofend the suit within 21 clays' but l:.e clicl not a.alt for leEflG and j~ent was anto:red against him on 13/t/9J. Then in Hiw 1990 he applied for leave to defend. '1111G 0i'.lplication 1-ms dis::iissod. ~1.en tlle applicant WOUGJ. TW applied f o:r the ju.clgment to be sot 2..side. A;-ain this application was also c1ismissed. The applicant dic.l 1101; do ~ ·all Docembe:tt 1990 when ho filocl this application. Mr. Mbuya. went on to subr:lit that the reasons for tho delay which the ap1)lioan'b hae mentioned in oourt a.-t'e not in his affidavit._ Tic oonoluded 'tr1.a.t the d~cree had already llGen e,ceout.ed a.nd that there we:ro no c;oocl . 3!ea.soos •:ri· :m.fficient reasons for the delay, Ile preyed for fb.a dismissal If Joe application,, !n a bthie:r, :reply -&ha a,pplica.nt said t.b.e.t h<3 had no advc..oate f' or -t(J.is case and that he had t:I:o.volled. at Ina time and was awcy f.:i.r 2 nonths., . ' I d.o not find any stri:'fi~ient reasl:,n tor the f'a.ilu:re of.,.-f1-1J, applicant ~·" ,• '•c'11 tQ file t..'1e a.ppea.l with.in tb.0 pe~~t't allowed by the law• Fur-U:u:r.e;io;r,o there · ha.a 1JGon inordinate d.ola;y :\n io.is · o~se for :r~a.aons -w.b.ich are ine:;;:plicablG• If tha applicant wanted ~:n.~ to. assist h:i.o, he could. still seal: st1.oh aesista.no• a.fto:t< filing his a,p~a.1. •. · Ju.dgm.ent was -on..tG:red. ex pari;e en 13/2/o/j .• 'lli .... J ,1 t, - 2 - '• a.nd the :ruling dismiss:i,tig t:10 a.pplicatmon soGking lGaVG to clofcnd tho suit was made on D/5/90,, Thon the rulmz° dismissing the application to sGt aside. the oo: p2,;ir'uo ju.c1gl;lent was given ?n ·11/G/90. T,.ore was no good reason wby tho 1:\:,)plioant did not appeal ~ithin t~~e till Do~embor 1990 when ho filoc1 this application. In his a:ffida,vit, -'!ihc E',l)plicant doos not stato why he was late in appealing against :what ho toms 11 the l~wer cou:rtt s rul:i.ncf' :l,:11. tho chanbsl' sur.1r:1011s, There are ?. Rulings of the lower court in t:1.is' oase and it is not loiown which of than tho appli- cant int~nd~ to challeJ:igg on appeal, If it is the Ruli!; 0 w~1oso oopy has been attached., the:a d.efini-'i.e'J.;y there are. hardly a:r:zy char.Leos of success in the intended appoe.l. ·{ I -would thol:'ei'o:ro dism:i.ss this a,pl)J.ioe,tL,n Yi th C<J·st~ ... 11..Bll.II.ATr - JUDGE 1/9/91 0 ~~ daliverod Applicant ~esent .....-'~-----, .·. Iv~ _Mbuya fo~~nd.an ·t . . . ... ___··-·-~- . ,~::~i? JUDGR ✓_:-·- . 1/9/3992., )I~ ,· . •