joseph vs sokoine university of agriculture 1994 tzhc 409 15 november 1994

Id ThJ KIGil OUXJiiT Ui' T^^kUE^ JjA'i vjv:#*i>J«iirf'ki*'i i'-iXuo^iLij^^^jjLuJ3 oJ.Vl.ijPdx.Jj -‘0„ 76 1^ J OiJjuPli !il J_|J._<.».-Li-~i . U *00009000 s e o* a o • a'# *>* ♦ ■*•JJl 1* iJOKDXi.4aj L L t X x vi'1 ..jili-OlJ-U1!1w-iwj oooo*3*** Oa.uDii'fT ii u L X ij O’ i’ixtui‘-U«s ^ ^ Ti;e ctppl’LC£?^*ix zuJD*^lu-OIv 0#iv* riaO-.uo “Pi,X©d. "fc^iis sroolios/tixon Under *j>GC~bio/i 14 o f the Laws o f lim ita tio n A c t 3JJo«10 1971 and S e c tio n 9 j o f th e C*P*G? 1966* He i s praying f o r orbaasion o f t i n e to in s t it u t e an appeal against th e judgement and docree in C iv il Case £o. 4 o f 1993 o f the D ictrxct Court o f Korogoro, Ee i s also praying f o r costs o f th e a p p lic atio n . The ap p lic atio n i s supported w ith Mgongo’s a ff id a v it * The fa c ts as disolooed by the a ffid a v it i s that the Respondeat «• p la i n t i f f f ile d an amended p lain t on the 4"b]' iwguot, 1993 and the ease t-ras fixed for mention on the 19th iaiguat, 1993* On th is l a t t e r date ( 19/ 0/ 93) the respondent su cce ssfu lly obtained leavo to prove the case ex-parto by a ffid a v it due to absence o f a representative of the applicant - dofenda^t. Ibo-parto judgement was entered on the 2nd September? 1993 against the applicant. I t i s also the a p p lican t’ s avoimcnt that ho wasnot aware that the car.:e was set down f c r lention oil the 19th Jiugust, 1993 nor vras he aware that ex-par bo judgement had been entered against the applicant. The ap plican t’ s main complaint i s on the award of ahs.5>000,000/a as general damages based on torbiens c la ia plus another award of shs.25jOOO/= as special damcjbs a lle g e d ly arising from in ju ry of character assassination on the part of the respondent - applicante That such award could not be ju st granted on a Boro swearing or affinning an a f fid a v it. Proof o f evidence i s necessary* Highlighting the applicant *s application, Ur. Kapinga, Learned counsel fo r the applicant, stated that i t i s strange on th e ir part to observe at para 6 o f the ariendod p la in t of the respondent to contain a defamatory claim on the account that the applicant refused to pay money in connexion with the estate o f the deceased 2 Jjina Joyce Uatabsnzibrra who diod intestate in a oar acci:.ent on tne 10th. of August5 1991 to the rospcnde.it - plw.nti.ffo That t?;o refuse! was ju s t if i e d because the estate - money paid to the true, and £,ctual administrator, of t 3io deceased zi eat..-to. I t i s further submitted that i^no so called rt‘;ud;;ouontn at pa&e 7 of the proceedings i s not judgment at a l l as i t ::V-v culo 4 of Order 20 of the O.f.C, 1966 -tfdeh very c le a r ly presci'ibes t:;at a judgement must not only be consi so but c l 00 that the statement therein nust show the point3 of dotm inatioaj tho decision thereon and the roason for such decision. On the atx'caicth of the above reasons? t.:.c Praying applicant i s " ' /■ ■. ’ for extension o f time fo r leave to f i l e apperl out of tin e to enable him content again;:t the s.:i judgaaaat. At the hearing o f t : i c application IIra Ivapinga aLaii-ied that the respondent Josephat Hugaimksrnu was properly acrrcu :.:ut was net present in court,, Admittedly I over looked on th is aspect and I tended to aj.roc vrf-th the. Learned Counsel on what ho nutnitted w.th tf. e result that I allowed hh:.i to prooocuto the application es-partc. I&th respect3 ho-p-ever, a fte r a thorough pomoal o f the Chamber Summons and the forwarding; notice while writing rulin;. o f the application I have noted :-jith regret that Mx*.Kapinca xrrxi not oorrcct •t-jhon he informed ac that the respondent wan served. There is no civldonoo to that e ffe c t, ITcfirortholosn, I think i t is also my duty to ezaaino as whet.’-.or the application i s sustainable in the circumstances an revealed by the applica­ n t ' s a ffid a v it and the submission made by Hr. ICapinga? counsel for the Solcoino U hivorsity o f Agriculture. The central issue hero is M other from the revelation o f fa c ts from the proceedings of the d is t r ic t court thorc i s reasonable or s u fficie n t cause to extend the period o f lim itation for the applicant to in s titu te an appeal out o f tiraoj notwithstanding that the period of lim itation lias e.rnired as proscribed under section 14 - ( l ) o f *'*ct So. 10 of 1971 (Limitation , ^ t ) . I t i s common Ground that 02-part0 judgement was obtained on the Sid dry o f .'ioptenber, 1993 against the applicant Sokoine U niversity of «»;:ricultux,o (Lorain referred as :ruh.). ^hen on the 17th day o f *>optoaborj 1993 the applicant f ile d a chamber application (supported Tftth an a ffid a v it) seeking an ordor to set aside the ox-narte ju -Igcnont / ...........3 - 3 g iv o i on 2/ 9/ 1993. Tho appli cation wau roaiotod by the rorjpo-i.lcat through hio advocato? Hr. Mascati. One ^yabiu^idi ha.. appcarc.’’ t o applicant. That application was eventually diijoitiscd ■'>?- vuui fouia to -o d efective in law, and that on 1l/l/l9 9 4 . ':V - ’^:no.. - plahiti:.?:? p r -- - t o d option fo r the elocution of t i c jj. Vciovb -vi' dr-oreo. Hr, .g-a'-in/idi put up an appli* cation fo r stay o f execution pci-Vi., a purported fro;;':. application fo r an order so ttin g aside tho eoi-parto ju\;cnont. Proa tPc ::•• th is application appears to have been on the 10th of -*nri.l, 1994. Thia wa*; no re than 90 days fron the date o f the ruling dated 1l/l/l9 9 4 . Soopito tho application fo r sta y o f execution i t would appear that crg.oivbioii ihrliiHaa.XK.at of tho " vo h id o o were aaxvif-d. out as per the cou rt’ s order dated 11/4/1994, The attached raot o lo-va’d c l on wero released a fte r tho applicant dopositod shs. 1 jOOOjCXJO/s as securty in to m r; of Order 21 r*24 (3) o f tho Gex.w.j 1960* I t would appoar that the second application for sottin g aside the esparto rhvdjoucsit was to be hoard on the 29th « p r ll, 1994 but was adjourned to 3/5/94 because the applicant - jud.30r.10.it debtor was viot procc.it. J t i l l on that date the applicant vac -lot preront and tho n atter iraa puehed to 4-/5/^4 fux* lumtion, On th is l a t t e r date tho Gourt •s record revoals that tho applicant had written a lo t to r to the court praying; for two vrocka adj ,urnr.;cnt so as to onablo th e ir lawyer from Dar 03 ^alarx:i to appear. On 13/ 3/94 the present ap p lican t's advocatoj Mr. Kapin_a^- appeared, before tho D is tr ic t Gourt a.id nade tho following application verbally* ” The f i r s t application was "iruirjfjad tin! no appc-al wars preferred a&ainot i t * Tho ri ...ht cause io t . appeal. I therefore pray fo r leave to withdraw thin application with leave to f i l e tho saao before the High Court”, The Si s t r i c t Court granted tho application and nade.an order fo r tho withdraw! of that application. The Learned t r i a l K agistrato also directed that the applicant waa at lib e r ty to f i l e hie appeal before the high Court, tor, Kapiaga then reacted 011 the 30th of A irust, 1994 when ho f ile d the present ehanbor application fo r extension of tin e to f i l e appeal out of tin e , ru ttin g aside a ll o f what r e a lly had hr„pponod. in tho d ie t i i c t court concerning t:.c rdsarable and in o;q?licable ''.clays to f i l e proper application fo r tho se ttin g aside csrff the e:.n-parto judgeuont, the applicant'o a ffid a v it / »»•»,, 4 4 - before thins court doos not say t£\<£1 copr.on o f procoo':~-.A- = ■ ■ juu.3Q-»on« f th-.j D is tr ic t Court 'P'ore supplied to ’rui a f t e r t. .c naoxoiorau-.’1o or-icr o.e,CL?.. 13/5/94# T"..oro io no ovi Icncc tc s^'.otr thy the appli catr.en vr.r; riled af t e r 105 day:; a fte r tho M ajiyt rat o’ b fin a l ordor of 13/ 5/ -:-’c ^-so curs-ona ari to tf.y tho a ffid a v it i s ralcnt an to xrhat -.tepns t ’- ... applicant undertook a fte r ho loarnt of the ox-partc jul' oaont on t i c 2nd of September, 1993. ’Tho a ffid a v it, of the applicant :;;ocDn to sver? 00 c~rv.a.".n n the inteaa-.-.Ou. ao'ooal har.; been preferred to t.:.o alter**;/ui’.vc rouedy avaa.uo.'lo uno.or 3ule 13 » ( l ) of Order 1Z o f tho C iv il Procedure U>do vrhioh entitler: t. 0 aofondsat tc apply before t?:.G t x i a l court f r r an order rsotiiu;; aside u.:.c ;\~,rto "ju^jonent p assed a;;£onpt h i m . The r s u b - r u lo p r o v id o r ;* M 13 — ( 1 ) In any e a s e i n i-rhich a d o o ro c, i s passed e sp a rto a _ ,a r n s t a d e fe n d a n t, h e m ay a p p ly t o th e co u rt by y r > J .c .- . t . '. o r . o g r o o >rao p a s r .o f i fo r a .- o r " o r to G ot a c id o j and i f h o r , a t i ; : . f i o n . ; t.".o c o u r t th a t th e n u a o io n s T jac n o t d u ly o o rro d ; or th a t h o - :a o p r e v e n t e d by any r ju ffic ie n t cau se fr o n a p p o a x i n ? T jhen t h e o u i t traB c a l l e d fo r h o a r in j, td o c o u r t s h a ll nako -m o r d e r c o ttin o ; a s id e th o d ecree as a p a in o t I lia upon b u g ... to m o as to c o sts, payoont in to cxu rt o r o th e r w is e an it th in k s fit and s h a ll a p p o in t a. d a y f o r p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e u u it s Pro '~l o.od o«eoe«»o()o«*aa*.«a* ( n o t j-'ol cr/ant ^* j It i s in th e e v id e n t re co rd th a t th e a p p lic a n t attem pted to 1.1cto th e c o u rt to s e t &aido c o -p a r t o judgem ent a -a in et h in but b i s e f f o r t A boro no -£ z 'c i* ao th e c o u rt h e ld th a t th o a f f i d a v i t f i l e d i n support o f th e a p p lic a t io n -far bad i n lair* L second a tte u p t a lo e f a " ) . - . A , divt t.’ ,c perdition i n th e m a tte r s t i l l rem ained una'aanpod in td.ot t:..o a p p lic a n t - .jud .xicnt d e b t o r 's l o j a l xifjjrt to a p p ly to v a c a te th e e s p a r t o ju d p ea o n t had not '>..■» d e c la re d s t a l e b y th e c o u r t. I *jould th e r e fo r e ta h o th e v io tr th.^t vrd ile th a t 1 e-pal r i ; h t a cco rd e d t o th e a p p lic a n t - d efen d an t tlirou^h -vhh.h he co u ld couse th e su b o rd in a to c o u rt t o v a o a to th e e s p a r t o d e cre e peccod i t , i t i s not le g i t i m a t e and p ro p e r to circum ven t th a t p ro c o d u rc l r u le a;.id ..0 to th e h ig h e r c o u rt t o d ia l'lo a jo th e ox-parfco ju d .oraoat tiiicd: td.o t i d a l eouxt had j u i u f i d ic i t io r . to raot i t a c id e upon s u f f i c i e n t caurae o r roaoon boin~ rjhoijn. »« IJl^lo I an fo r tif ie d by a cumber of authorities in s is tin g that su fficie n t reason has to bo the deciding facto r in an application fo r an enlargcncnt o f tin e , and also taking into view the fa ct that t h i s court has unfottered c!iac­ cretion to extend tin e for loavo to appeal out of tin e , however, I'cgard nust e l so be had to the nanner and way the procoo&ings were handed by the t r i a l court. I f I understand the ap plican t's a ffid a v it correctly, coupled with the subuission na,do before me by Hr* Kapinga,, counsel fo r the applicant, the nain conplaint i s that grave in ju s tic e wa,s acoassion cd by the t r i a l court when i t awarded to the p la i n t i f f - decree holder (respondent) Shs.5? 000,000/= as general danagos, and Shs«25}000/= as spocial danagos based cn a sinplc avoment o f the ro&pondcnt’ s a ffid a v it without proving the allcgod conplaint by oral evidence# That an a ffid a v it ouuld not on the (balance of) propcn&ero* nee o f evidence prove the allcgod defaaatoiy character assasaicn o f the p la in t if f without having recourrje to real evidence by the p l a i n t i f f ’ s witnesses* I t i s also questionable as hot; the p l a i n t i f f ’ s character could have been injured cn the account of the fa c t that the applicant—defendant refused to nakc payneat out o f the esta te o f the deceased iin-ia Joyce Buta.banzibwa, to the respondent fo r reason that the nonoy was .-actually paid to the adninistrater of the deceased's eotato one Tifilson Sanson. Uaothor th is statement i s correct or net, the point that outs right accross ny nind i s whether the t r i a l Magistrate was right in passing the Judgeucnt cn facets ba,sed on a swom a ffid a v it and not on ovidonco proving the oxtect o f danage cr injury to the p l a i n t i f f 's chara.ctor and exposition, the p rin cip le used in doteming the quantun o f danagos awarded, ot oo tcra* It i s also the rule o f law that special danagos are not generally assessed but nust s t r i c t l y bo proved by concrete evidence* and in nost ca.scs by docuucntary evidence* I have painstakingly delved into the entire record of the lower court i t h a view to ascertaining as what were the actual, averoents stated in the a f fid a v it f ile d to provo the p l a i n t i f f 's ca.sc ox—pa„rte. I t was not without d if f ic u lt y , I dare say, to perceive fron a ll the a ffid a v its found in the court record that only one a ffid a v it tends to show that i t could be the one purporting to be one as such f ile d in proof of the p l a i n t i f f 's case. I f then I an right tha.t the every a ffid a v it I an referring to i s the one f i l e d in Support of the p l a i n t i f f 's clai-n, with greatest respect, one doservco to be porploxod bocauoc the a ffid a v it i t s e l f does unequivocally sta te as fo r what i t seeks to support. Ebr the sake o f th is ruling and benefit o f tho parties, i t i s worthwhile to show what the a ffid a v it avers, startin g fron para 2 thereof* i<6 _ 6 2. That I am tho holder of a power of attojSioy by ono Hilson ITyibwa who was cluly appointed iidmini strain or of c_io estate of one Anna Joyce ButahaJ-isibwa now deceased. 3. That as a holder of such power attom oy I proscat od a ll clains duo to t.ho ostato to tho defendant* 4. That i n i t i a l l y the dofendant paid a ll the presented duos to sac and I eventually remitted the same to tho adninistrator of the ocrbato* 5* That when. I prerented the deceased's insurence d a ia s j and a it or I had incurred sane oxpc&sos following the cleans up and dowi to Dar es salaam, I handed over the cheque te tho defendant. 6. That instead of issuing ao with the cheque as they had done before the defendant f l a t l y refused to do so, im p lic itly casting doubt over ray c r e d ib ilit y and honesty. 7. That as a result of such action I f e l t g re a tly huatlod down and in stitu te d the present suit to restore ay d ig n ity and to recover damages fo r tho wrong i n f l i c t cd upon no by the defendant* / I an 0, That I vesaily and strongly believe / en title d to tho r e lie fs claimed in the p la in t. therefore I pray fo r judgment and docreo against the defendant as shorn in tho p la in t. Fran such a ffid a v it, in tho f i r s t place i t was net exhaustively proved that the applicant-defendant was obliged to pay the money from the deceased's estate to the respondent - p l a in t if f . In othorworis no evidence called fron tho administrator of the estate? or even tho beneficial^' to p o s itiv e ly confirm that tho alleged power of attorney had ex clu sively and absolutely requi.-'rl. that the deceasod*s property should be handed over to tho p la i n t i f f (respondent). Secondly, i t was not shown in evidence what wrong tho applicant - defendant had committed by sending tho money in the docoa.ocd’ s estate d ir e c tly to tho primary court o f tho area, in which the administrator of property i s or was residing? Thirdly, i t i s not explained in cvidonco, as to what wafl tho stumbling block preventing the respondent - p la in t if f to co lle c t tho said nonoy from tho primary court to which tho nonoy was sent fo r co llectio n as long as ho was holding the power of attorney so to do? A ll these questions? in ny considered view, remain unanswered and in effe ct i t cannot, without reasonable criticism , be said that the judgement was ju d ic ia lly , l e t alone ju d icio u sly, made under such oircunst aacos. I am tempted to believe, and also hold as intimated by the ap p lican t1s oouasoly I!r. Kapinga, that reading from t.hc a ffid a v it and jucUjo-:oxrb, what tlio p l a i n t i f f holds as a judgoacnt, i s not a judgment within tho meaning o f eub-iulo 4 os? Crlor 20 which providess "Ju&jacat shall contain a conciao staton oat o f tho caco, tho points fo r dotom ianticn, tho decision t.’ .orooa, ?iid tho reasons for such decision”. What has boon dc#cribod an .iudrcioat In found at page 5 c f tho typod pxoooodings, and i s dated 2/9/93? and i t readss TlCourts Urging gono through tho a ffid a v it lo t tho judgment ontorcd as prayed:,« I s I havo attcmptod to show ab.m>, tho a ffid a v it (heroin abovo rooitod) i t s e l f i s in s u ffic ie n t to con cisely and conclusively proved tho fa c ts fo r consideration and dotom ination, nor doos tho said ’’jud/pont" shows the points fo r dotoxninaticn, and on what roaoons on which tho docision was founded. Although the application boforo Lie i s to sock extension c f tin e fo r loavo to f i l e an intended appeal outside tho proscribed lim itatio n poriodj in ay inclinod view, i t w ill not servo tho in terest c f j u s t i c e whothor to 0rant or refuse the application bocauso the judgment or docroo sotight to bo appealed fron wa,s noithor judgement nor proper decision foundod on the correct p iin d p lo s o f law. In th is rogard, I have no aZtom ative but to involco the additional powers o f revision conformed upon t hi s court interns o f section 44 - (2) of the M agistrates' Courts Act, 19O4 which says* " 44"(2) In addition to any other powers in that bohrlf conferred upon the High Court, the High Court - may, in any proceeding o f a C iv il nature determined in a d is tr ic t cr a court o f a resident magistrates on application being nadc in that behalf by any pa,rty or of i t s own motion, i f i t appears that there has boaa an error material to tho moiit s of tho oa.se involving .justice, revise tho proceodiiigs and make such decision or order therein a,s i t scorns f i t s Provided I am mindful of the saving provision under the sub-soction that unless tho o ffo ct of such revision i s to incroeso any sum awarded or alterin ', t?-.o irLghts of any party to h is dotiimcnt, i t i s not nocessaiy that th*, p arties, or one of than, must be present at tho time for revision i s mado, or that muet f i r s t bo given an" apporfcunity to bo heard. Ia tho present case the situation io that tho proceedings in the d is tr ic t oourt are such that t'-ey bo revised, sad are accordixi£ly revised, aad nith. a direction that the auit be heard. do novo before another M agistrate of conpotent ju r is diction. I t fellow s thcreforo that a l l tho o r ’ ora nade oonaoquoat upon that judgci-io-it aro invalidated, and accordingly are act aside I ocko ao order as to oostu. JTDGJ ■^eliverod on 15th d'cvoLibor, '094 at Dar on Salaan. "•pplicaat - Absent Hespondmt - Absent <1*C. i'ixlxJLij. | JUDGE GKOIS* T^_o Order fo r revision be suppliocl to the paxtios upon pgynont o f fees, according to law. A. Ca i^L_i.'IA jim e ; C ertified true copy of the O riginal. A* S A il^ R DjffOTY BiJGlarflAa