19890609 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN TDE m:arr CotffiT OF TJ.JTZAUU AT Dlill ES SALf,.AM . CIVIL APPFJlt NOo 36 OF 1987 J.criginal Ptn,li Dase No.211 of 1979 mtis Court Kisutu)_ fl SALUM II.SAID •• • •• • • ,. • • • • • • •. •. • • • • • • ! • • •., •. e • • • • • • . " , • • • • • • • '7PPELLAfIT versus Bt>..11.l'l';t~ i• • !lhl.s is an application f'or ad.di tional evidence to be ta.li;en on appeal on the gro,md,a that such eVideno~ was not taken at the trial due t.e the absenee of the applicant and his advocate• 'l'his application is opposed 'tu the respond.ant on the grow,s:'l.s that 110 application was made n.t the trial to oall au.oh witi1oss0s~ Mr. Maira., lea.mad oouu,sel for the respondent nent on to su.1:Init that no appea.t'anoe was mai:le ey 1fue applicant a.n.d. his ad.T.Ooate and tha;l;~is why the oase proceeded to judgmai1t Without the. oall.itlg of ariy wi tnossos.. .:fi-om·.~the-applicantis aid- On the other hand Mr. ?-h-rajasho leaxned oouuso~ j'or, th!'. appl?,eattt has subni tted t~t it would be in the interest of juatioe to have the evidence of additional witnesses ... ~---:,.~ • ~ ~:, :: : : ~,,• .~. • . ~. • L :-;_ • ,, ~. • ~ .':t:, ta.K:en. Mre Mwajasho t1itod two oases in support of his a.t'G\llllmlil namo]Jr ~a.1. r'J.'e:r Mohamed ·v:. IeJ~~. p.nd op. (1958) E.,A. 5?7 ~. s ~ s11.a;1u r. S ~ (1961) EA 72. . 'lh~. cas~s :oi~ by M:t•• Mwaja.sb.o le?Xlled,, o~sol1 . µ,p, pPt. sµ,ppo~t hi:13 m-gument. In the cas3 of Kamal Ta.J;>Moh.aned (supra), it was held that except on grounds of fl'eud or surpris~i -~~~: general rule is th.at a.11 appellate court Will not admit .fresh evid.enoe, unless it was not available to the pei.rty soaking .to•.use it at the trial, or that roasonablo dilieanoe would not hr:.ve made it_ ~so aVll3,lail>].(;),., And in the . oi:.se, of' ~~ l;Jha:tii'!,, -aa.so .supra, it was h~••.~t as,th,e questio)l•of il,loa,~izy' a.r.0s9 ox ir!IPrpv.tao in.i;J.le mneistrato's cqurt1,. i:t v~-,oomplia~ely_ witpin_ th~ di_~oretion of, tho. Supr~IaO· Oowi;-t -f1o n.drai t :fresh €y:i:q..eno~ on appliQc,ttion and to Jia.vo d:en:ied.. the ?Ppl!oatien. Would hti.vo boell ~-- ri:~~~ r_a.nk i;l~tio_e to. :f;he respond.on~ . In tl1.e present -~a.f;le the ◊i:.J;'Otnnstc.noo.s env:Lsaged •;i.n the tt-ro oi ted oases abovo m-e no_i; proso11t•. 'D1ere u a s ~ or surprise to;rdisentitle .. the application of the general ru;te of non o.dmil§l$ion of i'R~sh_: _eVidenQ~ NoJ:> ~onn it be said that_ :!;he evid~I w~ 11ot available to the. a.ppl;i.ec1,t1t ·9-t ;th~ t:ri~ · ~o cvidenoe.. soueht. to be W~od. wo.s o e r . ~ a~J~ble ii9 -the_ ljl,pplio~t ~ f;l,t- the ttiul ro:oop_t . that he dicl ngt _'µ§e ;-~a~o~qlc • ~, •~ , o ~ • I . cl.~~e t,o m~f-;t a:~a.ble b8tilau,se_. ho did not- attond -~~. ~prmoro, it ~ot. .~ ~~- ;that· atw-t;~ arose ·ex improViso pi. tho t:riclJ... o~-- to on.Utle • ~ ..,,,"'"" .. --~ .... - . ,. ~ .... ,..._ - ·-~. ~ ~◄ ... " • ' .... - .. ., 1,, ~ .... .• • th~ tC~li1'lg. ............ ., . of _.frosh evidan.oe. The :record shows that the applicant and his . . advoea.'t,$ wero not prese11t ! in c ~ on the c1..:.-;y :fixed for hElt.'\.ting, and .that he '. .nevnr·'bothered to eo to . . ---~~-· .., . . . ... ·~thou¢2. o~scl· far tho a~plica:nt was _appoo.ri.I?-G" in. tho IIich Cou;rt on that day, . ~- . . ·, . ' ~ . .~ ~-'' 'i ...' .....~: tho 'iritl:C cO'll.rt aftor th'";,_,t; 1rhora the ~nl r.~::::ic~rc-:tc J ., _· ..... .-.••+.•j ''l.-;.':J •-.., •I ~.Ji'·,: "'Ii:~- • •:,.. ~ • • • 1 '. • . • . • .' • . • • • ,• -'! , . . ..__ .-rn.s ai ttil'l8' late. ]urt.b.c:rri10rc~ ru~1.s 27(1) of' Order 39 of the Civil ProcGduro Code also sets out tho conditions under lthioh ad.di tionru. ev:i.denoo mny be produced on appeal. 51 name:l'Y- whan the. trial court has rafuzed to adnrl:'t evidence which O'll£,1lt to have been admi-lited an.cl if tho Appellate Gou.rt requires atl3'. dooumertt to be prodliced or any wit:1ess to be examined to enable it to p~ndunoe ~enii; or for ru.w ofaer substa.nti~ cause. Ai..,~, tlie conditions listed :ln this rti1.o are not a:valiabla hero in tb,j,s caaee .I therefore azree wi t~.1 Mr~ Ma:i.ra that this applion.- tio}l fo:x:- arldit~onal evidence 5.s ra:tsconooivod and it is d.iamissed with costs. .TIJJ)G~ I cert5fy that this is a true CC'PY cf the original~ / .J DJ TIIB IIIGI:I COORT OF TMJZl'1N If. AT Dill ES Siltl!:fil! Jl'IISCELLlilIBOUS CIVIL CAUSE HOt. 24 OF' 1907 DOHil1ICO Ho IG:IJJYEMEM. ,. • 9 • • ~ .. w a O. "0. e • .. $ • • 0 • • • • 0 . . . . . . " • • oLPPLICANT versus TfJTZl:JUA POSTS & TELECOiifM1J1UCA l1I01J 1 CORPOPJ'i.TION. o ., ,. o • • • • • o . . . . . . . . . " • • • •,, ~., ~ • ~ • • • • ,. • • . • ~ 6 •• ... IillSPOI-:lDENT Tl:..ore we.s an applicc:,tion iii. this caso for lec:we to ui thclrmr tl.10 a.pplica.tio11 for orders of certiorari and no..-,1clanus nncl to substi tuto it 1)y a :frosh suit for t~:i.o sur.1e subject r.mtter o.ncl to ndd thereto :fuxther clain against tho responclent. J. copy of the proposed pluint uas attached to the n1-iplicntion. Tl:.01~0 W<1S no objection to this application ;::,,ncl the av;:;licntion was erantecl as prn.yecl. T'no.,t, however, uas not tho end of -'Gl~c natter, for :r.'fr. funtur2.ld., len.rnod counsel for the respondent, o.slcod for costs 1)oco.uso he hacl to prepn.re for tho case 2.s it tl:.en wns 2..;.'-'J.d he hnc.l to file c. cat.mter-ni'fid.a:vi te Ifo n.rguecl tlmt he had. prcpo.rod hir:lself to areuo n,gainst tho c..pplicc1tion for certiorari nnd r.1mi.d.anu.s 1( icl1 ,ms now l)cing wi thclrawn, 2.ncl c..s such he should 0 be eiven his costs for the work clone in the preparation. Mr,. Uzl,ncla, lo2.r".r.1ed cou:nsel :i:or the applicD,nt, l:'..rguod that this was a nere eontinunt1w of tho sane subject nat·l;or in another forr.1 and. that his client hn.cl not abc..11Cloned the olmn, Uc ste..tec1 f'uxther that in cnso the responclent suocoecled. in this clain under another forn he coulc'.. ho.ve his cosfo.. i'-'fr• Uzanda n.lso sulmtted that urn.ler Order 23 rule(2) thore is no nontion of costs, a.:nd that costs are pe,yable only wl1ero leave is not applieO. for. · Ee suggested thnt the proper order would l)e costs in the event. I TLgree with },'frJ Uzn...r1cln tl:i.nt U...'1der 0.23 r.1(2) thero is no r:iention of costs a.bd that costs are r.1ent~onod only under 0.. 23 r.1(3) when no pornission to wi-'db.clrn.w is granted.. I ~, therefore, 1111able to sec ru,y lX1,Sis for 2;rnntinc costs as preyed l)y the respondent. Tho r.10.tter hns not yet cone to ,-an:-.:.~.x.a..~ fnct tlmt tho responclont hnc.l no.do preparaUons to argue tl10 application as it wc..s then docs not r.1oan timt J10 shoulcl l)e GTantoc. costs,. T1e1~0 o.re nuner.ous ilwta.noes whore on the clay for hoa.ring a ce,,so or ap1)licc.:tion there is n.n appli- oution for ar.1cnfu.1011t nmle ru'ld c,-r2,ntccl ancl a totall,ir nOlt' lino of a.rgur:10nt hD,s to be p:repo..rod,. Ho coats o..ro rnmrded in suc!1 c2,sos and I crun1ot sec wlzy the present situa.tion shouJ.c1.. 1)o m;v different. For the above rcnsons I hold tlmt costs o.ro to bo in the event. 2 Ruling c1elivorecl to Miss Mjo.siri for :respondent nnd holdi:ne 1~ricf for Mr. Uzm1clc.... J1IDGE 17/6/1900. /