19980401 TZCA Dar es Salaam

( Co.D ;\~. ~ J.L...ct.l,J.. • T :) •. • ~ .Ir. • 1 ., ~ I·. ''! -·-···· ·----· SADBUDIN "?.iEGEJI 4 • • • f. e •• · f I•• t f p-:-~·D(\~.T~T,11",:r'T• • • --.....;to..,,-- '-'l.1.J.)__,;.,.•- {Application for Revision fron the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania. at Dar es Sala2..:!1) I dated. the cth day or Fe~ruary; r-)9-6.. in Civil C:J.se No. 224 of 199~ .,..•ww•iu·c LUBUVA, Comme-N~ 1 the appli~ i:i .;his a:,:r;i.lic:!~o:,, 1. .. t.r1e Cou_rt ( ,: is reqUes~ed for an oi-r...er of 11 rc·_,-.:..si.011 of th,~ liigh Cour~ deci5.h6Il .and remit the. ca~. -to. t~:e. E;li,_t1 C;.:ur~ ~r trial on ment.s 11 (sic) (pr~sum.ably '':me:-its). erred in. e.nt e rt ai-'1.ing ~'1-ie suit . wti en 7.":?..5 t:i 1;;~2. rre a. 1 T..e awl; .cat..:1.on is su.ppo~ -=>y an c.:.ff::.rfa,y:!. ~--d~,oeed to QY .,, ' Mr. T. C.. Kapinga. 1 a.ounsel to th::: ::.:9~1lic::.n.·t- s :Ce..n.t in tb.e . Legal and. Trc.1.~··tee····se.rvfccs Dc~~i;_:~;·:1e:1:t, =~~.a counter :\'.~. ;'. 'i'hen, a notic~ j of .preli.Jni."larJ objection ·Nas fil,::d ;_1..71d"?.X: :".J..le 100 of the Court's Ru.les, 1979, The prelirnj_nary ~1Jj•:-i:1tior: sough~ to 2 3. The 2.pplicatio!'. is · ti.:-ne-b,.;;_r:;.~.::d, 1Vhen the application was called on for hcari...~ 1 :Cr, D. Kesaria raised tl':e preliillinary ob.j ,:;ct:l.on. I.:1 :he ligl:lt of the affidavits filed and the submissions ty t:;.e l~arn.ed counsel :for both

:9arti•::s on the preli:-:iin,::l:7 objection9 the matter. The jud;~ent in:favou:::.~ of tb.2 res~-:1ondent in this application in I-::i. 6 1: Ccu::'.'t Civil Case :Tc. '.244. Ji ·; 99~L was delivered on 6, 2.: 996, In terms of t::e provisi,Jr..s c~-~ Order T--T Rule 1 of the learned trial judge1 It, is apr,,:,ren·;; r,l':,~ t Si:: ~e tl':e time When the judgment wa8 delive:rec: 1 apa:::.•r, ::::"r~.,::: ·s,:e rili:1g of Application Ho, 4 :, or' 1996 1 for stay o~· e:cecu tion of the decision dated 6, 2 1 1990, no atter,1pt ·,i;;,J,s :ciacl,:: to file an ap!)Qal to this Colu-t 1 nn ...,. 9 f 4.. ' 19c;7. - ' / of this application, was deli'✓-: __,·:::,:l ..•.• ''/~C 1• '1:::i.3 is ThE; central issu.e res:pondent wa:::; of the settled V7-!3W ~~ is inco~petent 3 Court with the l2cJ.ve o:· ~he High ,-::;curt. ::o·:.1r::'t2r,, in this case, Mr, .Kesaria. we::t on i::i his submission 1 the :eight of t appeal was !1.0t exercised. instead, this o.})9licat:..on for revision has been :filed. This~ he urged 1 i3 an isp::-oper use of the revisional powers of the Court, ·:'he reason he said 1 was t:ha t under t...11~ AP:Pella t:e Ju:-isdictior. Act 1 1979 1 the powers of revi3i:m were not mea::1..t to ..be used as an alternative to the al}:pellate ,jurisdi'.;ti,::n cf the court. Furthenno:ce, i.1r. ~(esaria -tated 1 ~~"m ...:... - ~? 1oq60 . ,,,,,J ... J. •.,/ • ..._, .,/.,,, when the

decision •.vas deliv-ered, the applicant did. n.ot extension of tiwe in which to see:: leave to appe2..l. In was all aouse of the court proce3s fol' the 3.:::;;,J.::.cs.::1.v to Kesa ..;.).' ..L. a nra,n:>d J; JV •'.o.,,.. '.,l. ... 4-hi:, \J •• ,,,.,.,.....7; -.,-:,+-i o-... •_.,.:.J!-'--~C.,..\>- v 1... it was JJ.o.p.elessly tim~carred, In suppc::.~t o:::· :us submissions, Mr. K.esar:La :refer.red us to the dee is::. ::.;.s J:;::' :h.:~3 Court in: 1t Ha.la.is .Pz-0,,Chemi.e In.du.st.r.ies Ltcl. v, ..:1ell3. AG, Civil Appli.cation N'o, 19 of "1'09~,; 2• ~.1oses J\1waki oete v The Edi tor of Ui:ur.1. and. Tvvo Others, Civil APPlicatior:. No. 8 or' 1994; 3• Transport Eo_uiprne:a.t Liw.ited v. D€v~ P. Valambhia 7 Ci ,ril Applicai;ion No •. :6 o:" 1994, 4- Mr. ?i1aira., learnec3. cov..21s81 :for th-2 r,2:::::pon(:,2nt, · strongly oppo:::ec7.. t~ie p::-~li.:linary ocjecti-'.J":; PrQCedu:;::e Code, 1966, it was a cons2m; ;ur~-~;:nent. In that si tuatio~ he ,.;,J..;'1..int-s?..ir..~, the d.e.c.-isiorr ·;,i,a.s !.!.Ct open to 1996 when he tool~ over the condyct' of the ca:~e a.YJ.d 0,ec.ame aware of the error il'l. the jufepen-ti. he _r;1~s1..1.ed ·tl:..e matter pI'OI!lptly "oy way of r2visi-"n and not by way ..:~f a.-;:rpeal, Fu~nnore, the c:har~ of aa.-..rccat.ss ha.--:dl:i.r:.;5 c.ase which accou...""lted f9" the time lost in pur--~::,g :n.2. tt e .r Relyin,, on the

decision Indy,if}es. Ltd• (supra) Mr, Maira urged th2. t o¢,/rt us fits on all fo.u~s wit..~ proposi~ion that Court can be invoked as an al "t;er:ia ti vc to the ::~l)ft~lla·:_>2 juris- dicti~J¼ On ~e. ~ e r hand, L1r. f:aira ::-.v::. ~od t::e Court: to 4eal, wi t-1. the matter on revisic:1. suo :::.ct,; in. •~.?..oe the Cou~ ~omes to the view that it was not :Jrop,:: rl.Y moved to exer~i - "' ...,0 e its revisi·onal J·u~1·sdi·ct1· ~n.... () T1:.is is·:_:: order to do justice in the ca;3e, :Mr. T,1aira p.oi:,.-:::.~::l out. 5 We have closely and a.n.xiousl;-/ given con sidt?I'a tion to these submissions. •,re will first de:,l ·::::.t:, the j_ssue o:f hesitation in stating S~2.t w~ a~e properly sovec1, in this applicati,JrL It is to '::· 1 ~ o1)serv~d ! that the m.atte:.. :l,?.s been filed ii1 this Court oy ;:,., notice 1 of motion unde1~ Sectio.:1. 4 ( 2) of the App 1?.ll2. te J1_;_:-i3diction Act, 1979, Sub-sectLms 2 and 3 of Sect:io:r, 4- of the Act as amended by Act No. : 7 of 1993i vests tb~ Court with powers of revision for 1)U!'poses of :J.!ld i~1c:..dent::1l to the hearing and dete:.'1Ilination of any appeal. 'l'hat is 1 the revisionaJ. jurisdictio;1 is exercised in th.:: cou"!'Je of heati.flg an appeal in rega::'d. to an aspect in the appeal in which no appeal has been :preferred.. I::1 tl1e ,:natt<::r before the Court, no appeal was instituted. 3..nd sc. the

rs'rision2.l p.DWers cannot '-oe invoked :for pur}>'.Jses :,:;_· a.:·:d i~cide:ntal to the deynni.nation of a."'.. appeal · i~:.::. :~: w2.'.:i :-Lt be.:: ore the Court• It :follows therefore t~1.2.·::: ·';:_::; :::: ~)L. ·::ti,:m has 'oe;;n filed cy notice ~f ::ic-+;i.Jrr '_::-id.t:.:::· ._- __ :; .:__'lS:.T.··=-=-::lble :3ection of the law, Consequently 1 as the Cou:::'t wa-:; not prcperly On the othe:r hand 1 gran-ced ·-.• ... - ---·· -· ~ --·•:''\ u ... ;,. - app ' J- J;"•• ,v,;;; - ---.,oved ,,,,,ci1e~" st1 '"'-•:.,,, ...,.,-,, - ' .,..,...nT>-ia-+--::ily \,,I ,-,.J. ~ - .. V - ., •,J J h • ·- •• - : • ';.., _.,, ,-,i-' ,._,, ... ';r..r-+; on -...J ..... ,,, .J - ... 4 of the Act, what are tl:.e cir:::u:.:..stances that woul.d v,arrant the exercise of the Court 1 .: strongly contended th2.t the change of 3.lvoc;:ttes in the handling of the case is 91.uficient reason ::unounti..-rig to 6 under sub..:.sectioi"! ( 3) c:' Jection 4- o :.· :he A-~:) the Court , stated inter ali~: . ( i) ' .. ... . .. (ii) Except 1.mder exceptional circu:-c:3tartces, a party to r_::.roceedings in the Ei,;h Court can."1ot ii1voke'. the revisional uiurisdiction of the Court as an alternativ-e to ::he appeJ.la te jurisdictil)n of .;;;he C'.ou:r·:. 'Nith great rezpect to Ti1r. Mair:?., ·t1e do ~h)t think that a change a:f ~ounsel in the cond·.:.~t o:: t::,2 ::-<2spondent' s to the appelJ.2..-~e

jurisdiction. :_::~--::..s -~= ::;c o >::·.:1.1.:cse 1 in the first place, B.nd 'NC re 'i sought to be revised for ins ti~:-.· :~_2;- "-~ _: __):,Je:.:-.L. due tc, the inadvertence 7 la::d ty and. o:r la psi:: on : ; :-~s ::3.rr, ,)f th1:: 1 respond.But' s C.OU..'1.Sel wb.o had t'.::!.e c:on:2:.lc:; JI 1;>5 case 1..mtil conduct of the case 1 became aware of the erro1~ in t::c: clsci:::io:!:1, th•? subj •?ct of this application• too that counsel's inadverten<>J; i:1.actio~~ •)r which goes to the ver-J root of trie matter i:; a seriou.s matter amount .;na- .J. b t() 1'"'8·'."·'ll. ,. 0 -- 0 ~'""\ 0 · c-· c:,-:..,cc.,-;, .-'-~ +-rr-i ._, __ _ of ,~ounse.l.. in our view, would not constitute su:f::'icien 1: reason to war:tant the e:xercis,:: of the 9ourt:-··1n--somewhat simil2.r situation involving la.xi ty and lapse on the part o::' cotmsel, i1.1. t::e G2.se of Kighoma Alli Ifulii.i'7.a v Abas Yusuf rtwin,'a;e.mrw. Ci:..r:':..l c..r a.u: o awaao -•ziO> • . ...r 11 Sufficient r~ason ha~ ~en ccnside :rod I iri a 11UIJ.oer of cases. Sometimes a sli 0 ht lap:;;e cy an ad-.:.rocate ·:.:li;;::-f"; be overlooked., bu.t not a lapse cf J. fu.nd2ne~1t,:l.l nat:,;_re like the :1on.-.sup~ly of any supporting evidence for an appli:a•i;ior: for enlargement of time. :, - In anoth~r ce.se 1 Institute _of :?il1a...:ce ::,Ianag~mer2t v Simon - the C•4 agai.:l state.a. 2.s :follows: C only v1her9

the :ii stake invol ·res ,.1 ::1inor ~r slight lapse 1 out not wher9 i·s involves a ~ of a- :iun.,dan~n::t.al natur0. :, In ~.his case, it he.a.t.s our ~ag,ina.tioE tllo.t T,Ir. Tuiaira urges us ta a.ccept that cow-i.sal' s failure to i:-ij_ -~i:3.t8 the iilst.ituticn of an appeaJ. for i3. p8riad of ; 1. :::oTths sine! 0 the delivery of the ·t--1.dgment on 6,2,1996 w::1s s, slight 3 ·, ----.---- .. Chemie case warra.:.--,..-~ii1,,_; the cou:::-t>s exersise of its t revisional povier::; • . had valiantly u~~:sed that as the decision of 6, 2.199G was made under Order 'l:'l ~culB I of the Ci ril ?rocedurc Code, 0 it was a consent ,jnd~ent i:i w·hich c~~se, he stressed 1 it was not ap-p.ealla bl e, blocked 'by law in which case in his vie :r, tl:c :n.2.tte:::- could 1 only oe brougM; up to ~his Court 'by W3.'J Q:f :te;vision, ·,7i th the applicarit deemed i~ un.necessarJ to take :::1.ny step3 Maira stated 1 the ::~atter has now been l8dged i:1 the Court seeking ~....sion. '7e. :find this su:::irnissic.n a~ctise but with rws~t, arB unatJ.e ~o acce})t i-:;, This 13 :f.'o:r the obvious reason that if, as urged by :.:r. :::2.L:.~·:'., the d-:-cision for w'.!uch revision is sought was a cor~se.::"c .j1..dgo•~nt 1 t.he matter would fall i.h:.der sectioi1 5 ( 2) (':-.. ; ( i) c::' the ..\p!)ellate Ju..risd.ict.i.on Act I T'979', LTI ~ it- l'.,":."~--ri de:::: : - N~twithstaruiing

the su119ecti.on (1) • (a) e~r,t with the leav8 of tl1e High Court, no lie against,. 1 - lie to the cour~ wi t+1 192.•re of the High (_;()1.tr'.;. 'Ii th a little dili,:~:::c8 o:'!. t":;2 p2.rt of counsel 1 this wou.ld ·hav.e been obvious. As it >.i~Jpc:1ec. in this ca,:;e 1 :-:o ,_-,.:Jpe.e.l was ground raised tha·c the appeal process we.s ::l·::;cl,>:>d by law is to our ruin.l~"s 1 1..mtenable. If a..11.ythiI1g c.:.t :ll : :_ t is a fu-rther reflection on co1.L'1Sel I s aei;ligeY-tcc. ·-'Ie re.ject this ground.. Finally, we will deal with the q_uestic,":'.}. o:::' :_imitation. Granted th.at the application for revision wD.s p-r.~:rperly founded in lar, 1 still v,e think 1 it would oe re::-:.,~;?. ::-ed incompetent, I(esari2. that the application is time~barred. Under the provisions of se,;tior: 3 and paragraph 21 of the First Schedule to t~:2 T.,-:::1 of Limitation Act, 1971 1 the application sho1.:_ld. ~a'TC been filed, within two n~ont,h,s ( 60 day3) fros tl:2 d~:.te of its delivery on 6,2,1996, The : applicat:i.0~1 the delive:r-J of the decision 1 This 1 in. ou.r ::01121,Jered opinion is ver"J filUch ~ o~ tirn.e. Tl:is ,;rc1.u:d alo~e, we thi:i.k would 'be suffic:i..en-6 to dispose o:f -,~h:L.s ap!)lication. Be'fore concludi:?J.g this :m.atter- 1 ':re 'N:;_s]·i ;;o observe that Ur. Maira' s al tert1.ati Ye plea froo the b:-::.r that t}1c Court · may wish to deal v;i th the ~ r ,011 rev:'.::::ion suc; :motu is equally unfotm.ie-d, Tb.a ma:t:te.r is al!'eJ.~:.:.~ "..)''::::'c::-r::- -i,;h:2. Ir- :,. 10 It has .. 1 \..: . .~. . . . . . ..., -··· in -'--Y,o V.1. ... - :.;_.c: sustained. th.is 1st r\pril, '., . ~ci98 . ~ ~ .,:,_. ,J It_; ff IW1AIJI-Ii'~SI J. LUJ3UV.A ''2:;:cs OF APPEL1 .!..:·: is a ti. ·ue copy of the original.