20170717 TZCA Dar es Salaam

\~o ,~\\ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CORAM: MJASIRI, J.A., MWARIJA, J.A., AND MWAMBEGELE, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 169/17 OF 2017 1. SAID NASSOR ZAHOR 2. MUNTASIR NASSOR ZAHOR 3. SABRA NASSOR ZAHOR -~• • • • • • • • • • • • • Ill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • APPLICANTS 4. INTISAR NASSOR ZAHOR VERSUS 1. NASSOR ZAHOR ABDULLA EL NABAHANYl 2. MRAJIS WA NYARAKA ZANZIBAR r-··"······•····· RESPONDENTS (Application for Revision of the Proceedings, Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Zanzibar at Vuga) (Rabia Hussein Mohamed, J.) Dated the 21 st day of J_une, ·20:12 · in Civil Case No. 13 of 2012 . ~ , - . . .. ..... ., •-.- ... ...... . ~ RULING OF THE ·COURT - - ~·- ·•. ..' '- MWAMBEGELE, J.A~: . ·:----·· ·.--· ""." -'L► ·_ ..;,;·. • This is an application for revision. It seeks to revise the • proceedings, judgment and decree ·ofJh~~J:119~-~C:ourt· of Zanzibar sit.tiri'g' -=:t[~';:r;~}~ • • • • • <. ~ ".~ •• ' .. - at Vuga in Civil Case No. 13 of 2012 (O.S). The application has been - -- . ---- - -- - - - - - .. lodged by a Notice of Motion taken under, essentially, the provisions of section 4 (3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 of 2002 (henceforth "the AJA"). And rule 65 (1), (2) and (3) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 - GN No. 368 of 2009 (henceforth "the Rules,,). It is supported by two affidavits. The first one has been duly sworn to by Said Nasser Zahor; the first applicant and the second has been sworn to by Sabra Nassar Zahor; the third respondent. The application is resisted by an affidavit in reply duly sworn to by Nassar Zahar Abdallah El Nabahany; the first respondent. The second respondent did lodge any affidavit in reply. When the application was calied oci_. fc°r hearing· beJcfre.:·us~:on 10.07.2017,_ Mr. Salim Hassan Bakari Mnkonje, learned -advocate . appeared for the applicants and Mr. Rajab Abdall_a_h Rajab, als9.:l_earned _- ..... :· . .',. - advocate appeared for the first respondent. The second respondent, though duly -served with the Notice :of'8e,fring~,-·:di.d-::JJJ)fie"'r1t_~f - · ::;.--~.· ,:.: .. ":·::,:··: -. . ' •-• -· ·_: - .. ·:. . . __ ~- ________. ._.,_, _,. ,. _._ -·-•--.. --------•--·-·-·, - ~- ... .. ; .· . ; . _,._. 4 ..._• -. ,-.,•-- _· ••-•, ••••• . . - . !---.. . . •- -~, .. • • --.:.. __ e,,:••• , , • --••---•~-;---o--•..-:-~,•"': ~ ,,,.,..,, ~- .... ~ • • C - • .,; :appearance. Ifl·the:premises, by virtue of-ru1ec~6-s"e2J-of"the··Ru'le·s, we- ., ., · . -· ordered the matter to proceed to hearing in the absence of the second ~ ... ·: :_,·); - .;, , ·-·-. ~ . ,.. . ; - .. ·, .. - respondent. <-. :----_,_ ... ;;,,,· --:~7:_·•-::}.. --~:-~~--~:--;..:....- ~t :. --·." ,, '. •"!.-'••·.,~· ~-,~-, 2 ····- - -- _ _,_~ -~------ . - . ~--•--- ·--···• ~~ -~ ~- -· - ·-- .. ·- ,, _______ ~~-- ·~~·-- - - - - - - - - ------ - However, before we could allow Mr. Mnkonje for the applicants to start addressing us on the application, Mr. Rajab for the first respondent rose to tell us that he was conceding to the application. He had reasons for taking that course of action. He contended that the bone of contention in the present application was the glaring fact that the applicants were not a party to the suit In the High Court. Parties to the impugned suit were the respondents; the first respondent was the plaintiff and the second respondent was the defendant. Mr. Rajab, who we salute as a true officer of the Court for taking that course of action, went on to state that the respondents in the suit went on to determine the matter in which the applicants had ·interest as if the land the subject of that suit was 1n the hands· of the·. · second respondent. That, he submitted, offended.the ends~f jus!ic;e._·: ....: ..;..... · ............ . . ,. ""' ~ as it denied the applicants, who had interest in the iands, the··right ·of · a hearing .. r.1e thus submitted_that the proceedings,judgn,e;nt_and,,_ ..... _ ...,. ....... -...=-.~ - • ·- - ·-., --·-·· -. . . ~d~~re~~:Of-:-tRe~-r-Hgn--G0Urt-he-q~-asf:teEI :afiel::the·~m·au~~r~~e";f'emftted·:to~~---:-"-· ~~--.. • • • • •• • • ; • •, • r O ,~. • ••• • --•-- • - the High Court for a rehearing de novo. Following the concession, he prayed that there:shoUld be rnade no as to costs:~-,::..---"::~::''._:;:;4-£t{~~/>:~·;<' • • _• -'.--,~~•;:>:·. ",•?;- •~••- • - -c•• • 3 ------------·- ·- - -~--:_.:·.- ..:·:_ ·-:-::..- -- - :___ ::-: -- -· _, .. . --•--- - - - -- - -- - - --·. -- - - -~- · - - . ., Mr. Mnkonje for the applicants, naturally, had no objection to the concession. However, he contended that as the applicants were not a party to the suit in the High Court, a rehearing de novo will not be apposite in the circumstances. He suggested that the impugned proceedings, judgment and decree of the High Court be quashed and the first respondent be at liberty t6·refile a fresh suit in which he will implead the applicants if he so wishes. Regarding costs, Mr. Mnkonje submitted that the applicants have incurred costs including travelling to and from Dar es Salaam to attend to the case. That notwithstanding, he submitted, as Mr. Rajab for the first respondent has readily conceded, he would not mind if the applicants are awarded ·-·· ·.. ' half the costs. We accorded audience to Mr. Rajab to rejoin on ~he question of h ~,-:, •· ••• • • ,•~ - •: < · costs as proposed by Mr. Mnkonje. Mr. Rajab s-tuck,to his•guns to'6e ·. - :· •• •• -,.-• -,.,,•,.•, .. • ,--., .--.--R• - ; : . . . , ~ r ~•r, • . . ::, .-·-· . . -applicants' and Court's~precious time. • - . . . •.•'--,,t1,•,v ~-....---•,.,,., .... ~ ~ - ' 9 , . ' I , . , " - . ,,.,_._., """:>/;R" We have considered the submissions by the learned counsel for . , . :· .. -:·--.·~--· . . .· ...... ::: ___ :.-.-.. ·--::-;:· -~·.:=;;_~;:-:_~-~·~<-:"!~·<'!7'_,.':""~-(•_,;~,.,~---_··-, '. .. the parties appearing. We should now be in a position to determine,:~~\t:·:i:_:_:E~:::~-,- the issues otcontr:oversy_ that have pqpped _out after the cor:tc~_s_sio_f1. -- 4 However, before we delve into that, in order to appreciate the orders we will eventually make at the end of this ruling, we find it apposite to narrate, albeit briefly, the material background facts of these revisional proceedings. The first respondent is the father of the applicants. By a Deed of Gift dated 30.01.2002, he (the first respondent), passed ownership of a parcel of land at Kiembesamaki area within the Municipality of Zanzibar in Zanzibar Island to the first and second applicants. Likewise, on the same date; that is, 30.01.2002, by another Deed of Gift, he passed ownership of House No. 19/7 situate at Kikwajuni area within the Municipality of Zanzibar in Zanzibar Island to the third and fourth applicants and a certain Intisari Nassar Zahor who is not party to these proceedings but is the first _r~?pondent's child_~-~---·--~'>. • as well. - - -, -- . ____ ,. .............. -- .. __ ,_ ... ,..,Jc ________ -_;_,...,..,..~------~---·- ... Subsequently, the second respondent registered the Deeds of Gift accordingly. .. . ... --- ""-·--------~-----· . . .. ... ..., --• -,- - - .· ' ' . Vide Civil Case No. 13 of 2012 (O.S), the first respondent successfully sued the second respondent seeking to revoke the two ,' ~--; ,--:-.~.,:-~---~-- .. . beeds of Gift. That suit proceeded ex pan:e. The reason why the first respondent sought- to revoke the Deeds can be deciphered ·;n· his 5 . .. testimony on 13.06.2012. at pp 147-148 of the record, he is recorded as saying: "Your Ladyship 1 gave my two houses as a gift to some of my children. I did this before I was blessed with other three children. I gave my first house as a gift to my children namely Said Nasso~ Muntasir Nassar. I also gave my second house as a gift to my other children namely Sabra Nasso~ Inty Salim and Salum Nassar who is now the deceased. Now that I have been blessed with other · · three children namely Nasrin Nasso~- Nasruu Nassar and Mudrik Nassar. · These two gifts _· : · ·'.\~ .. -·--··- - _are registered here in Zanzibar. The first gift ... ., .. _ concerns house 19/7 of KikwajunFwh/ch ls" -:~-"- • • v~:: ..,..,..._ > • . -·--·•-•------- --~ .~'..:-=.-·•"-·. . ~--:- _.... ~:~·-..::_--:...;,. ·. . :;· __.. ___... _ teglsl:~refl in 20027n-- vol I Book A-3:, The second gift involves my house of · - •. ~•..,-- ..• ... -- ~...- : , . : . . ~ • • • : : ~ - - - - ' . . : . . . ~ - - - _ . •.... • - . .-. •r• -~• ,:- • _Kiembesan1aki which is registerifcF.dfJ:::7;2Qtb~~;,~-;---.~: -~- . ,,_ ..... ~.. - ~ ,~ - -- . ._;_ ~~;~-;·1,:~:_-;::~~~~~ ·:::,~~~~\~-;~-:_/· .· .:\_ 2002(stc) itJ .Vol._JBoak tl-3. 6 --- -- - - ---..---- . ·j - - - - - - -~----- --- --w--- Your Ladyship I pray for revocation of these two gifts for the reasons that I am not in a position to build another house for my other three children. I also dont want to deny these three children their inheritance if I will be the first one to leave this world. Denying inheritance to [these] three children is against my Islamic Religion. I pray for the revocation of gifts of house No. 19/7 of Kikwajuni and that of Kiembesamaki. I also pray for those two houses to be registered by the Defendant in my name, and-any other order in my favour. " -••-"-- ....... -·- • . . .. . • - - - , . • - • ~ - • • • ~ _ . , _ _ ___,,.,.,.... _ _ ,_a _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , , _ _ _ _ - - . •- The High Court (Rabia Hussein Mohamed, J.) revoked the Deeds ... _, .o_n.02..O2.20.12 .. Ata later stage, the revocation cameto the·knowledg~~ _·_·a•::--~-_ - · ~~- -~~ ... -•--~-- ·- . - --~- :~-~~~--,,_-- - ~-_. ___.··~~-:.,_:---·:- ___:·~ ~~~~~=~--.~~;.:!:·~~,--_~--~ . . ·--··. 2~-~- -~ofthe-applitants who~· as .afread~T alluaea-foa66ve~-were·: not-a party--·- to the suit revoking the Deeds. The applicants came -.-.to learn of .. the _ ::.-· ....... .- ·•·.·:-- - ·•-. : ·c- .. ~ ., -· :· • of _Defence _filed by the first responden_t in CiviJ Case No. 52 of 2014; a 7 suit which was filed by the first and second applicants in High Court of Zanzibar against the first respondent over the property conveyed through the first Deed of Gift. There was another suit (Civil Case No. 56 of 2014) filed in the same High Court of Zanzibar by the third and fourth applicants in respect of the second Deed of Gift. That suit; that is, Civil Case No. 56 of 2014, was struck out by the High Court of Zanzibar (Mwampashi, J.) on the ground that the High Court could not assail its own decision in Civil Case No. 13 of 2012 (O.S). That was the point in time when the applicants resorted to this Court through these revisional proceedings. These proceedings were •·· ·- . instituted a~e_r_the appli~ants sought and obtained_ leave of the Court · (Ndika, J.A) on 06.03.2017 to file them out of time. .. .. ~ -~-:- .. ' . we now revert to the determination of the two issues stated above. ·.-- ~,,f-;.,:.;.-:~--=---•~:.:.:::··.· .._._..· ·...... ,-,.•·~~~ ~ .__ ,: ·. ~ ~. ~ ..·=·-:·_.:;;:_._·_- :---_,;...-~-'.":... _· -:.we wish .to. state_ at· th is stage that the cfpJ5Utants, .whose -rights Were - -· ~i-~, ;:~-~"- .. ,. ,--~ . • '.·i • • . . ',,; .. • : • , • •·• •., - r• ·• •-· • • _.:....:::.::.. • : ~ ~ ~ - - · , . . _ - : - •• :~--~~~~,.._· ':,_- ~ •--"'• _ .. _. ,'.,...;,, •• ·--~~_..:..__.---•,!"""""·.......:.,~,....-_;_. __.:"" ~ - -,.\ ~,> - - - - • • - ,... ~~~r affected by CivH Case No.· 13 of 2012 (O.S) in the High Court to which -C-hemie-v. WeHa A~G (1996] TLR.269.and Se/com Gaiiilng l1m1ted 8 v. Gaming Management (T) ltd & Gaming Board of Tanzania [2006] TLR 200 and Chief Abdallah Said Fundikira v. Hillal A. Hillal, Civil Application No. 72 of 2002 and Attorney General v. Oysterbay Villas Limited & anor, Civil Application No. 299/16 of 2016 (both unreported). In those cases, we emphasized and held that revision is the only recourse available to a person who was not a party to the suit that has affected his interest to challenge that decision. In the case at hand, the applicants were not a party to the impugned suit in the High Court and therefore could not legally be in a position to challenge it by way of appeal. The interests of the applicants irt.the preseht instance were undoubtedly affected by Civil Case No. 1_3 of 2012 (O.S). The Deeds of Gift were revoked by the court in a suit they were, not a party . and _ ... :-·•.:·, ··- . . - .· ·- ·- -· .. ~-- . -- . - .~ "" - •. . . ~ .... therefore could not be heard. This course robbed the applicants of .. ~h~i,r f~ricJ~rn~ntal r{ght to .be heard. The rightto be~beard -is enshrined _._ .;.. • . • • ~- ! _ _ • ••••• • • •.' • • .,.:! : / ":.:} _. , r : .,____ -,- --- . in eur-GOAStitut:ion:i-the·Constitution ofthe=tJnlted:R~public df Tanzanrz·~,--- 1977. The relevant article is 13 (6) (a). It reads: .. --- ·-- ... "wakati haki na · wajibu wa ·intu yeyote vinahitaji kufanyiwa uamuzi wa mahakama 9 au chon1bo kinginecho kinachohusika, basi n1tu huyo atakuwa na haki ya kupewa fursa ya kusikilizwa kwa ukamilifu, na pia haki ya kukata rufaa au kupata nafuu nyingine ya kisheria kutokana na maamuzi ya mahakama au chombo hicho kinginecho kinachohusika The English version of the official Kiswahili version reads: "when the rights and duties of any person are being determined by the court or any other agenc½ that person shall be·entltled'lc?~-:--·":·-c··_~~.,. .... ,. ·'·=·:- 0 a fair hearing and to the right of appeal ot other legal remedy against the -d_ecision-~of-· ··· _· - .. -- ~-~ ---- · _:. _____ . _.:-.~-:-:~""·-- _,__., . . . . ., ... ,_ ....... _ - . _ . . . 4-_ _ _ _ ~----- ,_. • • • - , • . , _ · - - - - - -... - .• the court or of the other agency concerned fundamental and whenever abrogated by court proceedings, such ,~r~ _,'5'"1~-~ .·--:...-~•.•:.•: -;..:,.--,;~.•:,•:,,;:;-- •• ~·_..,; ....... ,................ :,. . ~-~9'."'"-'-, - .. -:---:=- '•#•-,··.... - ·-. proceedings will be null and· void. - see_:.. lriclep~frdent. . .. ·Power - :-."(•-~,:- . 10 Limited, Civil Revision No 1 of 2009 (unreported) and Abbas Sherally & another v. Abdul Sultan Haji Mohamed Fazalboy, Civil Application No. 133 of 2002 (also unreported). In Independent Power Tanzania Limited, for instance, this Court held: "No decision must be made by any court of Justice/ body or authority entrusted with the power to determine rights and duties so as to adversely affect the interests of any person without first giving him a hearing according to the principles of natural Justice'~ - . . ..... . - ... .. ., ~ --·· . · Likewise; in emphasizing the above position enshrined in ·the Grund Norm, the Co_urt.held in Ab_bas Sh~~~Hy andartothet{$.Gprar~--·.....,:~..-·.·: -~· · as follows. adverse action or decision is taken against , ..~·;·~-~-•·•-_. -~~~ _. ___ ·: -·.-~··· ;· ·,emphasized by the courts in · riUmet6Ds .· ::_ "-\~':"";.;.,:·::,,:.--;:·,- '": •· ~ ·· · 11 decisions. That right is so basic that a decision which is arrived at in violation of it will be nullified even if the same decision would have been reached had the part been hear~ because the violation is considered to be a breach of principles of natural Justice. // [Emphasis supplied]. In the light of the above authorities, we were not surprised at Mr. Rajab's concession. Consequently, we would grant the application. :·: · :·: · . Having so done, what then should be the way· forward? ·This:is the question to which we now turn. . . ·- --- - ... ·-·-····--··- - ._ .......... __ ,..,.,. ,_ .;. ••. ....._._ .. ..., - -...+- ·•• --...... -. ... - ... t·-- .....- . - - · - - . -·· -· --• -,Mr. Rajab thought that it would be appropriate to order that the· matter should he ordered to be heard de novo. This prayer, as already -· . ···•·· " . ~-,-. .. 7~• .... - ·- -----~ ~ - ~-,,__,.. - . . , . . - . . .... . . . . .:,::.~ ..-_.::_~~ ·.stat~d ~above,.:.was strenuously .objected:ro-by-M_r.: "MnkonJe--on--tliE:f:---· ·· .- ....... ~'"'":.:- :.. •, • -- - ~ ..... -· - ..._ _ _ i -~ •• ,· - -- - - - - ---- ,,.,..,..... --~----•--:··- iJ,,,•. ,_< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ . .~ . . . , _ _ . . ~ ground that the applicants were not a party to the suit thus if a rehearing de nova is ordered, they stillwilrnot be a party. He proposed:,~-:,i-::~:~: :::·::- . .-_ ·.·~-- -::·-~::s- .. -:~-..!:~ ..../ •• ' ··- -..~. ·..._--~ti~..:.- ... . -~. ---- .-..·---·"---..·•~; __~.. ~-...,;J_.".!,,•~ ... • that the proceedings, judgment and decree of the High C:ourf -be·7 ,· ··:-·.: '-" .· · -·- • 12 ·- ----- ·- -~~-~--- ------ --- ... i-- - -------- ••••• -· - -· • i_ i-- . -- quashed with liberty to the first respondent to file a fresh suit and implead the applicants if he so wishes. We have given due consideration to the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties .. Having so done, we find so convincing the proposition brought to the fore by Mr. Mnkonje; it has a lot of sense. If we order a hearing de novo, undoubtedly, the parties will be the same. That cannot guarantee the applicants' right to be heard on the strength of which the present application is allowed. We are of a considered view that a hearing de nova will not be the best way forward to solve the present dispute between the applicants and respondents. As for costs, we think Mr. Mnkonje has been very considerate. He has asked for half the costs of the suit. The prayer by Mr. Mnkonje for half_ the ~o-~_t$ of the pr~sent applicant has,.Jn :our view_ betters the. , ... ··--· --~--- respondents' fate. We are of such a considered view because, in civil . . . . ·-· c ......... ~ .... --.-- _.,,._ -- .... - - - - · _ _ _ . . : . - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ --:--~.-: • - - 4-. •• the panacea that soothes the souls of litigants that, in the absence of sound reasons, the Court is not prepared to deprive ·-,.,, .', ·.,i,,11......... the. winning .. . - litigant . ~ ~ ....... .-· -.......... ......-.--·· ~ ~- . -,· · · of: These are the usual consequence~bf~ . . --.--.- ~.. iitigation . . to which the respondents are not exempt. At this. juncture, I find it irresistible to 13 - ... quote the statement of Bowen, L.J. in Cropper v. Smith (1884), 26 Ch. D. 700, at p. 711: "I have found in my experience that there is one panacea which heals every sore in litigation and that is costs. l have very seldom/ if eve0 been unfortunate enough to come across an instance where a party had made a mistake in his pleadings which has put the other side to such a disadvantage or that it cannot be cured by the application of that healing medicine'~ And I also find very convincing the statement of Othman, J. (as he then was - later became Chief Justice ·of tan·zaniaf in ·K~nedy··, ~ --- -- --·- Kamwela v. Sophia Mwangulangu & another, Miscellaneous Civil ---- .. - - - - - • • • .. -~-~--~A.,.._"...~~~-:"-···:-.~-,..:_::,_._~,:,·~··,_-,_.·--~~:..,_,.. ~•~ ~ -·--, , . .. AppJication.No.-3.l -~' .. - ..... -- of 2004-(unreported) ..... ~--,.,. . ..... -- -· .. -- ..,. whieti~cteeis1on;.:b_e.ing:~on:e::.of.......·...;_·--_---- - - - the High Court, I find it highly persuasive and depicting the correct 14 ., e "Costs are one panacea that no doubt heal such sore in litigations'~ We share the sentiments of His Lordship Othman, J. (as he then was) in the foregoing quote as well as the statement of Bowen, L.J. in Cropper v. Smith (supra). The mere fact that counsel for the first respondent has readily conceded to the application, cannot exempt the respondents from paying costs of the application. These are the usual consequences of litigation to which the respondents are not exempt. Be that as it may, counsel for the respondents has forbore the panacea of costs in full. He is contented with half the dose. That course of action should not be belittled by counsel for the first respondent, for, it ameliorates the extent to which the respondents should normally have suffered in terms of co~ts. ·_ . The foregoing said, and as counsel for the first respondent has ·" · readily conceded to the ·-application;. we·: are ..constraine.d ·to,- ~-as. we-=,;_"_,_·_~-.:. hereby do, grant this application. The proceedings and judgment of the High Courf of Zanzibar in Civil Case No. 13 of. 2oi2;:;~(.0\S}.are:~.,:: :: quashed and its·· flanking order set aside. The respondents are 15 • condemned to pay the applicants half the costs of the application as prayed for by Mr. Mnkonje. The first respondent is at liberty to institute a fresh suit in a proper court and implead the applicants if he so wishes subject, of course, to the prevailing laws on limitation. Order accordingly. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 17th day of July, 2017. S. MJASIRI JUSTICE OF APPEAL A.G. MWARIJA JUSTICE OF APPEAL J.C.M. MWAMBEGELE -~- . JUSTICE OF AP.eEAl:-.::_ _______ . ----~-- ·-. -- ---······• --------···---,-- ••·- I certify that this is a true copy of the original. -- - - , . .. ---':"'~.~ .- . ____ ________ ~ ,,.~ ..- .__,.._a-"..._,;,...__~~--- ... ... ,.,. - .... ~- ·- .- .... " .. ·., ; ·--- ~ . .__... ~- .... ....,.. ~""---"~~-- ,,.:· ~ . .......... ;;:_. - ~-- . .. ~-~ A.H. umi ·-~ · DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL ------ -· ., .· 16