selestine kakwaya vs inspector general of police another 2009 tzhc 203 24 february 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. IB OF 2008 SELESTINE KAKWAYA ................... APPLICANT Versus 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 2. ATTORNEY GENERAL ................RESPONDENTS 24/02/2009 & 24/02/2009 RULING HON. MADAM, SHANGALI, J. The applicant SELESTINE KAKWAYA has filed this application seeking for the leave of this court to allow him to file his main suit against the first and second respondents as "a Law aid su it "The application has been made under section 95 and section 68 (e) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966 and any other enabling provision of the law. His chamber summons is duly supported by an affidavit deponed by the applicant in person. Having heard the applicant and Mr. Mayeye, Learned State Attorney representing both respondents, there is no dispute whatsoever that the applicants intention is to seek permission of this court to be allowed to file his suit before this court without payment of the court fees. In other words the applicant is intending to seek for remission of court fees under the provisions of section 8(1) and (2) of the Court Fees Rules, Judicature and Application of Laws Act, Cap. 358 R.E. 2002 and not to file his suit as "a law aid suit." Mr. Mayeye, learned State Attorney has submitted that, since the application was made and filed under the wrong provisions of the law, the only remedy is to struck out the whole application and the applicant to be advice to file a fresh application under the correct provisions of the law. Reluctantly, the applicant, who is a layman conceded to the I agree with the Leaned State Attorney. The intended application was totally and completely made under wrong provision of the law and it is seeking for quite a different remedy not relating to the court fees remission. The applicant is therefore adviced to employ the provisions of section 8 (1) and (2) of the Court Fees Rules, Judicature and Application of Laws Act, Cap. 358 R.E. 2002 and apply for remission of court fees. J At this juncture, this application is hereby struck out with a leave to the applicant to file a fresh application under the correct provision of the law if he is still interested to pursue his suit. No order for the costs. M.S. 24/02/2009 Ruling delivered.todate 24th February, 2009 in the.oreseace^fe Mr. Mayeye, Learned State Attorney for both respondents and in the pres^p%£tjthe applicant in person. '' : .£ ? * . Nt i i M.S. SH^N/GALI JUDGl 24/02/2009