N

IN THE COURT OF APP.;};AL DF TANZANIA AT. DAR ·Es SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL l\O. 35 OF 1999 BETl'iillN SELEMAN MOHAMED. . . . • • • • • PJ?FELLA.~T AED 1. THE INDUSTRIAL COURT.OF TANZANIA 2. THE MINISTER :F'OR LABOUR 3. THE LABOUR C0MMISSIONE~ 0 &RESPONDENTS __ 4. TANZANIA TELE!C04MUiHCATIQN. CO, LTD. 5,., Tllli HONOURABLE A'rTOPJ'-lEY GENERAL (Appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) , (!5aleg~~.1.-, J .) dated the 30th October, 1998 in RULING In this application, Mr., Swai, lea...""lled counsel, ap~,ed J,or tme 4th Respondent. He raised a preliminary objection n o ~ "-f which had been given m terms of Rule 100 of the Gov.rt of Appeal Rules, 4979.. The essence of the prelim:inary objection was to the effect that the appeal is incompetent for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5 ( 1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, ·1979 and Rules 43 (a), 44 and 89 (1) (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979. He urged the Court to dismiss the appeal because it was filed without leave thereby offending the provisions of Section 5 (1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979. Counsel further observed that Section 5 (1) (a) of the Appellate ..../2 2 Jurisdiction Act t 1979, only c:.llows appea.ls from matters decided in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court 1 He cited the case of .....,_ Luhman •. , . . . . . ~ Martin =a versus Jurna Saidi• . 1992 TLR 74 -wherein ~..-......:.-t.·...=:.~~~·...,...... ~ the Court ·of Appeal held that the High Court having determined the probate and administration cause in its original jurisdictioI?-, there was no need t•'. apply for leave to appeal to this Court• . Mr• Chidowu, '! learned State Atto.rn.ey~· suppo::.·ted tbe .submission ,of Mrf•_;Swai f.or ·, 4'. the sarne reascins. The appellant filed a r2ply to the preliminary 40-jevtion contending that he filed the c::.ppeal under Section 5 ,.(1) .(a) cf the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 and not under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Appellate Jur.isdiction,Act 1 1979 which requires leave Wifppeal. He also cited the case of ~IEA~l,1?.rt~ cited above, The appellant further cited th£;: case. of fu;gu.stjp.o Lya~ M,rem,a•:ersus Th~ Ee.:e.~~l~...£. Criminal. .Appeal No. 61 of 1999, Court of Appeal -6-f .T=~anilil. at Dar es Salaam £unreporteij 1 a case which had reache.d. the Court by way of apwa]. but the Court docided 1 i.n the inteJ;eS.t of _justice. to proceed by v;ay of revision. We do not think, howeyer ► that Mrema I s Criminal case would apply to the civil appeal be fore us because criminal and civil cases are governed by different substantive and procedura.l la~vs o The issue is whether the appeal is incompetent. We are of the view·: that the prelim:L.'1.ary objection is devoid I of merit., The Higl1 Court dismissed the suit, Civil Case No,. 269 of 1997, on the 30th October,_1997. Upholding the preliminary objection, among others, the High Court stated that - ·