stephen semba vs leonard obed mlewa others 2007 tzhc 64 25 april 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 66 OF 2005 STEPHEN SEM BA.............................. APPLICANT Versus 1. LEONARD OBED MLEWA 2. TANZANIA HOUSING BANK 3. THE MINISTER FOR LABOUR

AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT Date of last order - 8/3/2007 Date o f Ruling - 25/5/2007

RULING Shangwa, J. On 15/12/2004, the applicant was granted leave by this court in Misc. Civil Cause No. 98 of 1991 to apply for prerogative orders of certiorari and mandamus. It was ordered that he should present his application within 14 days from the date when he was granted leave to apply for the 2 said orders that is on 15/12/2004. He did not comply with the said order. Instead, he filed this application for the said orders on 15/8/2005 which was eight months after obtaining leave to do so. On 20/10/2005, the learned State Attorney for the 3rd Respondent raised a preliminary objection against his application on two grounds: First, that the application is time barred. Second, that the decision sought to be challenged is not attached to the application. It was submitted by the learned State Attorney that the application is incompetent for having been filed out of time and for non­ attachment of the copy of the decision which is sought to be challenged. Counsel for the Applicant MS Maira and Company Advocates contended that the applicant could not have filed his application within 14 days from the date when he was granted leave because the certified copy of the order granting him leave was supplied to him on 19/7/2005 long after the said period had expired. He said that procedural technicalities are not supposed to defeat the ends of justice. In my opinion, the applicant was

not serious in obtaining a certificate copy of the order which granted him leave to apply for prerogative orders of certiorari and mandamus. Had he been serious in doing so, he would have obtained it within 14 days from the date when he was granted leave and he would have filed his application within the said period. It appears that after granting him leave, he did not bother to come to court and obtain a certified copy of the order granting him leave so that he may file his application within time. It appears also that even after obtaining the same on 19/7/2005, he did not bother to file his application within 14 days from the said date. He filed it on 15/8/2005 which was 26 days thereafter. Apart from that, the decision of the Minister for Labour and Youth Development (3rd Respondent) which he wants this court to quash was not attached to the application. Therefore, I agree with the learned State Attorney for the 3rd Respondent that as the decision sought to be challenged was not attached to the application and as the application was filed out of time, the application is both incompetent and time barred. For these reasons, I hereby dismiss it but I order that each party should bear its own costs. A. Shangwa

JUDGE 25/4/2007 th reef in open court this 25th day of April, 2007. / to "7 o>x • " O ... - ^ v „ \ C - ■' ^ //r' J fp tl t ' a . Shangwa H. £ judge ^ '