19881028 TZHC Dar es Salaam1

1-u,sc. crv11.1i.rr6 nc~ . 2 O.D' 1907 RElill:lA R.:'.Jll'...D:::::i.'JII o ., • • • • • • • • , • • • • • ,. , • • . , • • , • • • • • • APF'.GLLil'l'l: versus i'J'ITOHY Il.l..'1:£IJJI RULI£TG ( Nr. Uz2:.1cJ.o.. su.lrli tted th~t t'..10 lI:J[;o::10ni 1'ri;·_1&y Court :'lad no jurisdicJdon J.:;o ,l.dainisJcor the es·~Q.·tc o:~ Jcthc1 Sclu;·.1 I='a.'1c;clw_;oral10 a.s sone of t:io i):ro:,orties in the estr.-fo (3 house in Dax es 31:,lr,,x.1) are situated 011 r0c,~st0rod laJ.1cl'° =e (.(UO-~ed. -~.,!.G case oi· G-eor[{C Ifur1weL11Je v. F:i.dolis, H~rirenda ( 19qt) TI.J~ 211 s ~3.SCJ.1.[;c, Ja, (2s ho then 1-rn.s) in support of tJ-~is j_,roposition. T:.1is clccioion hn.s, ho,,ove:r, ;Joen over- ruled. 1.:)~r ScolC!.sticn. Benedict v., uar-~i;.1 Tienod.ict-.s C;i. vil Appeal Ho. 26 T'.:.10 Court o:Z An)(,n,l J.1a.s holcl 1)crtioc: 011 ··,)ri· t l,~ u.:1, t .,.,i•ri;:wx,:r Courts .wvc l .,. • . jurisd.ictio:.1 i:J. au:.1im. str2-t.10:.1 o:i: re3i s .Ji;erocL~ la.:.1t1.. J. t"t .L:. • In view of t)rn 2-bove quotoc.l jucl6-:·.10;:1·~, I 1.10lc"i. that t~1c Hnconeni Prir.rn:ry Court hc:il. juxisclictim1 to on·i;ertci~1 -~.' io probate ctcse. In this vein, I see no uoo:?ul purpose woulc.l 1:ic GG:i..'V'ocl 1Jy allowinc tJ.1c n:_,i:-ell2nt adcluce ackli tion ..,l cvi(lencc rce,-c>rcli1'.l{; tho 2c...cJG t.'.:,:-:..t so.:r0 l):L'o 1_,crtios in tl::.G esto..te of Jothr,. 3a.11.u Pnnca.lucowl:icuei<c., sitL:.c.""'/iicd on registered lanrJ.. In vi01r o:Z the oral eviLlencc rccn.rdinc the stc1.mli11.[.; of tho o..ppellant rs child i. c. that he w.::.s1ior-.ae out of tho extro.. ;:w.xito.l relr!:tionS:1ip of t:10 appellc..1.1"~ and tho late Jeth£.. Salu::1 Pa115aluco:-.1:)o~ I see 11_0 reason for 2.llm-rin5 tb.e arpellc:-.nt to proc.luce the 1)i:rt!J. ccrti:':ic-1.-co of this c~:.iLl,. It is for deter;-.1i11,.i:~io11 ol this 2.)pc2,l irrclcv2.1lt., I nould. J:.2:ve 1,cld diff crentl:;,- hnd tI1e 2.:,-:::;_,cll2nt uantcd to prorlucG n. r.1o.rriacc certi:.'..'icato coverin(;' her .., rclationa:i:) or n.ssoci2,tio11 1ri tl1 12.::;e Jo·i;1.w. SalUJ.-::i Pru:i..:::;c1J.1.,1.co::100. I'or- rco..sons outlined a1x,vc$ I reject n.pplic2tion 1Jy tho an)cllnnt to lead aL.1-di tion2,l oVidcncc 011 t11e :2,10·i; J.;.1.1at sonc of t].w :~•ro11erties lcf~G by the la-to ,Jctha Srutk7 Pansa,lucci:1:)e .1r0r0 on re 0 isterccl land. nnd :f urt)'.cr 011 the :Cr:cJ.:; t.1:1aJi; t:1e chil,l not~:crcc~ 1),"/ the a.p1)ellnnt hacl ir1doeu. l)cen fathcrec1 1Jy J etha Salw-.1 Pan{saluc;o,'.1;:,c • '. 16/1/90 Co1~ru-.u Ru.Jf.:i·U~, J, Par-~ica absent. Rulil1{S delivered. Yi~~TA RTmiJ1L JlJDGE 16/1/90 IN ~ IlICfl:I COT.ffiT OF Tl,NZANIA flT DJ,.R ES SALAAM I\USCELLlllJEOUS CIVIL APPEAL H0.3 OF 1987 . OTilMAlJ Mli.'l~l.1111 .... ., •• • ., •• o ~ o •• ., • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • o • •• APPELLANT versus :MlillGARET ELANGWA •••••••••• ., •• ., •••••••••••• • •• •·o • .. Ri~SPOiulEiilT SITAIDI RULING I:.'Il\.PIGAN0 3 J., othma.n M:atata the ap1)lic;:111t was the respoaclent in the lower court. He l xlged an appeal to this court :froa the judg!;1ent of' the lower court which was passed ex-pa.rte against hii':1 on G/1/87, setting out four gTOUl1ds in the nenorand:um of appeal. On ~0/9/87 the Deputy Registrar appointecl the 1/12/87 J':.9 the date of hoari11g of the appeal. ITowever on 1/12/87 · the appeal was not hoard because the file could not be traced. On 3/12/87 when the appeal was called '6n for hearing, after the file had beea tre.cocl, the applicant was absent. The learned judge dismissed. the appeal for the applicant's absence. Months later tho applicant made the instant application seeking an order for re-ad.mission of' the appeal, prcslll:J.ably u.ncler rule 19 of Order 39 c.P. c. The application is supported by two affidavits sworn by the e.pplicant and one Mrs Maleko an official. of' this court, respectivel,y'. l1he 1 ~ . respondent has resisted the application and her advocate Mr. MwcJ.G:1sui1l;Ul.a has sworn a counter-affidavit in which he has pointed outj among other , things, that the applica tio~1 is time-barred., I have read the deposi"l;ions set forth in three affidavits and carefully considered the saraeo On ~,,st impression it seeras to me a.rGUable whether the applicant hac1 bee:n given clue notice that tho appeal would be hoard 011 3/12/07. But for what I ar.i goinf; to sny herein below I should not decide the point whether or not the applicant was prevented by sufficient ca~ fron appearing on that day,. As inclioated above there is the contention that the application is tirae-barredo Under the law an application for re-adnission of an appeal should be made within 30 daJ"S fron the date of the dismissal. of the appeal 0 This application Wc1S apparent¼' made on the 18/3/88, that is after tho period of limitation bad long expired. In his affidavit the applicant states that he was away f'rou Tanzania between 6/1/fJO and 29/2/88.c.vnd he would have th.at ~iod excluded., But according to the a.eposi . . tion ' i.i1 para-- E:,Taph 7 of the counter--:-e,ff'idavit ,which has not been disputed 1tlle· applicant should have been mmre of the fate of his _appeal by 18/12/87 ite• befor·c:3 he went abroad. In the oir,~st~es I acic'~pt tho respondent 1 s contention ,., - 2 - that this application is late and should be disuissed4 It is ordered accordingly and the respondent will have her costs. Delivered Advocates present. ~+1!5. . Q__,.IA-j) - ./ (D.P.JrJ.Li.PIGil.lm!. ~,, JUDGE -~ 28/10/19138,.