Sahara Media Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26086 OF 2024 (Arising from small claim No. 8 of 2024 Ilemela District Court at Ilemela before Kiama-SRM) SAHARA MEDIA GROUP LIMITED ………………………….. APPELLANT VERSUS TANFOAM LIMITED ………………….............................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 5th November & 23rd December, 2024. CHUMA, J. Troubled by the decision of the District Court of Ilemela in small claim No. 8 of 2024 dated 20th day of September, 2024, the appellant lodged this appeal fronting six grounds which I don’t see any need to reproduce as they will appear in due cause of my deliberation. This appeal was argued through written submission. According to the scheduling order, the applicant ought to file his submission on 12.11.2024, reply on 19.11.2024 and rejoinder if any by 26.11.2024, and ruling on 06.12.2024. However, the available submission is that of the appellant filed by Mr. Boniphase Sariro advocate for the appellant. On the other hand, the 1 respondent failed to file reply instead Mr. Stephen Dominick Mushi advocate for the respondent moved this court via letter dated 19th November, 2024 received in court on 29th November, 2024 to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. The reasons behind his prayer are non-adherence of the courts’ scheduling orders and service of the appellants’ submission in chief. Having gone through the record, it is evident that the appellants’ submission was filed electronically before 19th November, 2024 contrary to what the respondents’ advocate alleged in his letter hence his argument for his failure to reply for want of the existence of the appellants’ submission is out of context. The issue of waiting service in this era is again misconceived. In circumstance Mr. Stephen Mushi advocate ought to have done more than he did before this court. Be that as it may, it is beyond doubt that Mr. Sariro advocate for the appellant filed electronically his submission and made payment on 19th November, 2024 beyond the court ordered schedule without assigning reasons. It is now a settled position of law as it was held in the case of John Chuwa Vs. Anthony Ciza, [1992] TLR that the date of filing the application 2 is the date of payment of fees and not that of receipt of the relevant documents in the registry. Also, in National Bank of Commerce Vs. Ballast Construction Company Limited (Civil Application No. 445/01 of 2022) [2023] TZCA 17798 (8 November, 2023), the Court restated the same principle that: - “I think this ground cannot tie me up for good reason that the question of when the Court document is deemed filed, is well settled. Rule 119 (1) of the Rules provides that a document is taken to have been lodged in Court upon payment of requisite fees”. Guided by the above position, which I dully subscribe and follow, the date of filing a document in court is the date when the prerequisite fee is paid and not when the document is electronically submitted. Therefore, when a party files a case electronically on any date before the last date of the limitation period, he is also required to pay court fees. Failure to do so not only invalidates the document but also makes the entire act unacceptable under the law. It has been held countless times that court orders must be respected. See the cases of Laemthong Rice Co. Ltd Vs. Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance Zanzibar, Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2019; and Mary Joseph Vs. Rachel Zephania, Misc. Land Application No. 37 of 3 2020. Thus, the appellants’ written submissions filed on and made payment on 19th November, 2024 were indeed time barred. It is a trite law that anything filed out of time without leave of the court must be disregarded. See the case of Elizabeth Salehe Saidi Vs. Entrepreneurs Financial Centre and 4 Others (Misc. Land Application 688 of 2020) [2021] TZHC Land Division 433 (5 August 2021). Furthermore, failure to file written submissions as ordered by the court is tantamount to non-appearance in court on the date fixed for the hearing. See the case of Kiputo S/o Ahmad Vs. Mariki S/o Mpenda & 3 Others Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2021 (unreported) on page 5, last paragraph and page 6 last paragraph, Winfrida Lazaro Zabron Vs. Ryaga Yuda Ryaga & 6 Others, Civil Case No. 30 of 2022 (unreported), on pages 4 and 5 and Godfrey Kimbe Vs. Peter Ngonyani, Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2014 (unreported). Therefore, because the appellant failed to file his submission in chief in total disregard of the court order he has failed to prosecute his appeal. For the reasons considered and stated herein above, I dismiss this 4 appeal for want of prosecution without an order as to cost basing on the circumstance of this case. DATED at MWANZA this 23rd day of December, 2024. W.M. CHUMA JUDGE 5 Ruling delivered virtually in attendance of Mr. Boniphase Sariro learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Alex Luoga advocate holding brief for Mr. Stephen Dominick Mushi learned counsel for the respondent this 23rd day of December, 2024. J. D. OPUDO, SRM /DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6