20170629 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY

ATMWANZA PC. MATRIMONIAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 16 OF 2015- (Arising from the Judgment of the Appellate ~::ouit of Nyamagana District in Misc. Civil Appeal No._ 36 of 2011 originated from'Urban Primary Courtin Civil Case No. 48 of 2014) SAMWEL HODALI .. ■ • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • I •••••••• ■ •••••• II. I • • • • • • ■ II ■ .APPELLANT versus BEATRICE MANASE .................... ~-................... ~ ....... RESPONDENT -JUDGMENT 23/3 & 29/6/2017 J ■--A. oe::MElLO, J; The Court in _its wisdom -observed the second Appeal number Appeal No. ·----- 17 of 2015, misplaced, as already the Appellant Samwel Hodali had instituted PC. Matrimonial Appeal No. 16 of 2015 against the same . . judgment and decree from District Court of Nyamagana in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2014 originating· from Mwanza Urban Primary Court in Matrimonial Case No. 48 of 2014. The first Appeal was lodged in this Court on on 23/06/2015, by Samweli Hodali, while Beatrice the wife lodged hers, on the 24/06/2015, a day later. A cross Appeal would be appropriate and it was ordered for a Reply to the Petition of Appeal with, simultaneous written submissions by each. It is the Appellant himself i"n · compliance but outside the time frame limit set tft~t Jhe 13/4/2017, while .. . . . ~ .r?r~~ . . . . . 1 ... the Respondent in defiance. This is nothing else that 'Non Compliance' of Court orders. In the case of TBL

vs., Edson· Dhobe, Misc. Application No. 96 of 2006 . . . (Unreported) the Court had,. after the findings in the case of Fredrick Mutafurwa vs. CRDB (1996] l TD & Another, land Case No. 146 of 2006, respectively, holding as follows; 1. "Court orders should be respected and complied with. Courts should not condone ·such failures. To do so is to set a bad precedent and invite chaos. Always Court's should exercise firm control over proceedings". (TBL's supra) 2. "Times and out · of numbers this Court has held that the practise of filing submissions tantamounts to a hearing and therefore failure to com_ply has been likened to Non Appearance Qr Want of Prosecution". The Appellant, other than missing out deliberately or otherwise, on the above, opted to file the submissions at his own pace and leisure. Is this not inviting chaos while tuning the Court into a Kangaroo Court? ·. I will thus follow the holding on the c~se of Pius Saweli & Others vs. Tanzania Portland Cement Co. Ltd., Civil Application No. 107 of 2010, CAT at DSrvt had this to say:- "It follows therefore, the documents filed outside the prescribe t_ime frame and without application and· obtained_ le~ve of. the Court to en~arge the said-period are asgood_:s h~~not filed. They are to be expunged from the record .. . ' ~ · . 2 . I hereby therefore expunge the same and, left with nothing towards this Appeal. To this end, I· however, waive costs considering the nature of the parties and the matt~r itself. ·. '--' -. ......' .. ,. . ·. \\.<\,~l\~:! ).( l _ , • "-t• ·•, '• ·• • "-~•' ~-:, ', > ; .,./I ' '~ -~.' I .,v ,i l Judge . >-- . : ·",. ··:; ~~-. : _,,,'.••; .·.. 29 th June, 2017. 3