19890209 TZHC Dar es Salaam

( -:-;mo•- J. 1J.-• •..,, o-:-,r-.-~-•. ..o--,...·•srr, J:L_li-l;L1. 1 .,,1 • .t!,.,~1 -,o · -::ip"'· \.J0.l;~u- .1l J'.1 ~ 1°/8° '"ID <J u .i-i.i', ORIGD::LL }.PPLICL'J.1I01J HO< 167 OF 1987 OF REGIOlJAL I?)T1SETG 'rIGDUi''i-:-C,L I,iOJT,lISD STJUD &01Jonoooooooooooooeoeooo&oc&ooooo APPELL:Ji!1.I1 .Versus PILIP I:ILNJI PL::u::;J..R 0~0•000 ■ 000000000000000000 RE3PO:NTI3.NT R. U- L I lif G Ml\J'ZAVAS J .K. 'I.his is an application 1,mder Bec·tion 5(1) (6) of the li.pp01l.:1te Jurisdiction Act seeking :for leave to appeal to the Court oi Appeal. The applicant is 'o,lso applyii1g uncle~ OR 39 R.5 of the Civil Procedure Code for Gfay o:f execution ponding appeal to the Court of Appeal. !,:rgL1.in5 in support of tlle application f'or leave to appeal to the Cou:r·t of .Appea.l I,Ir. Rai thatha learnecl cm..msel for tl:,,e applicant, subr.1i tted! t:1nt t;_10re are in tl1iG cr.i.se 1Tk.w.'1y points ,Jf law involved o~lling for determinc.tion 'by the Com~t of lippeal 0 ':1h0 learned cou."0.Sel mentioned the question o:Z nlletlJ.er there was in fact alternative <1,0cm:unod.atio11 reas0112.bly eqvive.,lGnt for the applicnnto It was also a:ccr1..1ecl t:w:b t:!.e question of credibility on the part of the respondent r.lso needed scr-1.1.tiny by the Court of hppeal. .. As for stay of e::::.ecution it wan arg,:,ed ·i;b.n;l; if t;:1e 2.p:plicant is evicted from tho prc::.ises he will suffer gron.t loss as l1e hns 110 plea to keep hiG chop good.so 'Iil:1.e respondent rebui;-'cod applicant 1s argwnent t!1at he has no place fo ke_ep his· stop goods. He told the Co"w:"ts that the aHern,ttive accor:unocJ.ation ho :100 offered t).:..e applica.r.ri; is still vaca..Ylt and that he, tlle respondent, has t>.e key to the alternative accomi:iodation which key he will hand to the respondento The q1~estio~1 wliether 1 t:1ere was ·y- alternative acconmodation wa.s loolceJ. in-co b-J the Regiol'lu,l Housing Tribu.l1a1 which ordered eviction of the. n.pplicn.:-1t from the preli1iSGGo I r 2 ' The queGtion whet.her the alternative accor.Jmoclation W8..S reasonably ' e:x.1n-esslJr looked into ~.,y tho ;l1ri1J1m2.l bu·{; this court he lrl in its jud6"0ii1e::.1t dated 31/1/89 tbD;i; tl.te. qv.ection of reasonableness c01}.lcl be presumed as having been looked info b;y- t:te '.~ribunal of fimt inst2.llCOo ::J:owever in view of T,b.~o P..a,i thc1,t~12. 1 s arg-uD011t mcy be tllis io a cc1se Uiat shov.ld be looked in·to by tho Court of i~ppoal on t.i10 cruection of reasoni."..bleness. It is on t.~1is issue only that I gr2..Y1t leave to the applicant to appe2,l to t~1.e Court cf' Appeal., Leave is accorclin:; granted. 11.s fo1~ the are,1.:L1e:nt th..1.t t~:i.e applica11t will suf:?er grcc..t loss if .::i.e 1s evicted fror.1 :i;lle prcr.:1ises botl: ·i;}1e RegionC1.l ITov.::,ing Tri bunn1 ·, ... and tn.is Court h;ive founcl 'ti~::.at the1'0 · is alternative accomtiodation offered to tl1c applica.11t/res;)onclent by t~.1e respondcnt/applic·a.nt. And, to cr~rwn it all, t:::10 responder.t has -bold tl1c court that tlle alternative accolimodation is still vaco.:nt o.nd ho has keyc to it. That being ·i;ho p6sition ni)plicant ts arg:.1me11t that he will st:.ffer great loss as ,ho i:-rill h1wo no wl~ere to keep hio ohop goods i:f te. is evicted" from the pre1;1ises lJ.2.8 no leg to stancl 0110 OR 39 R5(1) of t11e Civil Procedure Code scyG inter aliag 11 1:..n appeal s!.::.all not operate as 2. [i-~a;y of procoedincs unclor a dc··,rce or o:ro.cr 2-pj,)ealcd from -ilno shall ~xecu,cion of a decree be st[\ycd by ree,son only of o.n appeal b,vin3 been prof erred from tho decree; but the Court may for su:'ficie:;.1t cau.se oro.er s·t;a:7 of e:i:001.::tion ol' such decreeu. In view of what I llr1;vc stated above I see 110 sufficient cai.me entitling this court -to order _dtay of e:x:ecutiono Eb[ecu-liion to proceedo iif oS o I'l.nzavo.o J.\JI KIONGOZI o Dar es Salaara