PHILIP CHIGULU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB REGISTRY OF DODOMA AT DODOMA LAND REVIEW NO. 21473 OF 2024 (Originating from Land Case No.37 of 2023 High Court of Tanzania at Dodoma) PHILIP SAMSON CHIGULU t/a PHILIP SAMSON CHIGULU AGENT (suing via special power of attorney of MININGA GAPI LUMASHI)..................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE AGRICULTURE INPUTS TRUST FUND.................................................... 1stRESPONDE MARIAM A. NKUMBI............................................................................ 2ndRESPONDEN FESTO M. MAHIMBA............................................................................. 3rdRESPONDEN WINNERS PROPERTY LTD..................................................................... 4thRESPONDE SAMSON KISHIMBA.............................................................................. 5thRESPONDE LAZARO KIHELYA.................................................................................. 6thRESPONDE KIHELYA TRACTORS AUTO PARTS LIMITED.......................................... 7thRESPONDE ATTORNEY GENERAL............................................................................ 8thRESPONDEN RULING Date of the last order: 14/11/2024 Date of the Ruling: 10/12/2024. KHALFAN, J. This is a ruling on preliminary objection raised by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th respondents to the effect that; 1. The application contravenes Order XLII Ru/e 3 read together with Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E 2019] It is on record that, the applicant had earlier on filed Land Case No. 37 of 2023 before this court against the respondents jointly and severally for several reliefs. The said suit met a stumbling block as it was adjudged time barred following a preliminary objection raised by the respondents. The applicant has now filed this application for review but it has met the above preliminary objection. The preliminary objection was disposed of by way of written submissions in which the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th respondents were represented by Mr. Erasto Stephen Baluwa, learned state attorney. The applicant appeared in person unrepresented. In his submission, the learned state attorney argued that in terms of Order XLII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E 2019], (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC")/ it states in no ambiguous terms that the provisions that govern appeal shall apply to the review. He argued that, Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) of the CPC requires memorandum of appeal to set forth under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any arguments or narrative. He further argued that, looking at the grounds of review by the applicant, they are not in the acceptable form required by the law. He averred that, the application contains laws and arguments. He added that amongst the issues raised, are preliminary objection on the proper name of the court, citation of the case, time limitation, wrong citation and facts elaborating the cause of action. He contended that; the above complaints were determined by the court hence making the application for review an appeal in disguise. He referred to the case of Yusuph Hamisi Mushi vs. Abubakari Halidi Haji & Another Civil Application No. 575/01 of 2021 Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam (unreported). 3 He also submitted that, the application for review, like in appeal, must be accompanied with the decree and judgment subject for review. He maintained that; the documents attached on the application do not form part of the documents required to be attached to the application for review. He therefore urged the court to find the application incompetent and the same should be struck out. In his reply submission, the applicant did not address the substance of the submission by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th respondents. Rather, he submitted that the submissions were defective for containing wrong name of the court and were served to him late. To this, he prayed for the court to order the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th respondents to compensate the applicant a sum of TZS 500,000,000/= for filing a defective submission. I have carefully considered the submissions filed. As correctly argued by the learned state attorney, the provisions of the law which govern the appeal, are also applicable to review. Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) of the CPC, requires the grounds of appeal to be concise without any arguments and narrative. This means that, the grounds of review are required to comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) of the CPC. 4 The ruling of the court which the applicant seeks the court to review adjudged the applicant's case to be time barred. In the instant application, the applicant filed a 49 pages document with over 100 paragraphs which I must admit, cannot be read without much difficulty. Those paragraphs contain a lot of arguments with case laws which were not canvassed in the previous case. Even in his submission in reply to the preliminary objection, the applicant could not say anything of substance to counter the arguments by the learned state attorney. Basing on the above discussion, I find that; the application contravenes Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) of the CPC. Thus, I proceed to strike it out. In the circumstance, I will not make an order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED at DODOMA this 10th December 2024. 5