19960530 TZHC Tabora

IN THE HIGH .CO~JRT -oF TANZAUIA MISC. CIVIL CAUSE NO~ 15 OF 1995 In the matter of·Eleotion Petition under the Election Act 1995 and Elec-'.;ions (Election Petition) Rules' 1971. BUYOGERA JULIUS BUNYAMB(, • • •. •. • •• •.• •·•·• •• •• •. • ffiTITIOHI-ffi ·vER$US ~ ·, : : 1 ,' TEE ATTOR 1.:rEY -GE11E~AL i. . -.. :-i-c,, . , , '?•' . . . . . ~. • • • •·•~ • .- , • .- •••• , •• • h.i::.SPO_,_,D~_._~'S 2, ALCAROO .DENNIS NTAGAZ1L\ ' . . . Subject: . Preliminary Obje,) ~-ions. ~.~-#~-:.f.'-=::I . ~ . ·. The 29/10/1995, is an l~delible date, in the historieal records on this Country, for crec::_ibly _witnessing a memdhtous, exhilarating, historical and democratic event, tbat ushered in mul tiparty; Parliament~ r·y and :::>Pesidential elections• · Iri Ki bohdo ,District, Kigc r,ia P.egion, Muhambwe was one of . tHe P&riiament~ry electo:.: rLl constituencies, in which, CCM, ' 1 rADEAj . i,TCcRLMAGEuzrj ·mm:1 tiE3lded tbeir resp~dti ve. t;1ectoral aspir11nts~ to contest fc,'.' that cdnstituency"'E3 Pa~liamentary throne. As, is cHaractcr-istic of competitidhsj or contastsJ not all competitors} or (:ontestants, are at the end of thet, day, declared w·irtners, r:'cme are to lose. as oth~rs win, and it :fo came to pass; that the COM candidate LA.LC.A::100 DENNIS NTAGAZWA, hence tc be. called the 2nd respondent, was by the Returning Off::'..cer, declared an elected member. -,bt Parliament,. for Muhe.ri'bwe Constituency. • ./2. 2-- The Petitioner, the hit~erto UMD ca_ndidate, agg:i.. ieved has filed an election petit·ion, signed and verified. ori his behalf, by his Advoc8.te Mr. Kaya.ea, seeking for itemised reasons, i.e. p[:.ras (6) (a)~ (b)., (c),_ (,dh (e)i (f)• (g), (h), (i)- and 7, of the ~aid petition, th~. declaration that ·che eleci.:;iotl results,.· in tho.t Coristituen~y, . . are xiull and void., - in 0U·1e~ N6rds~ to unseat tbe 2hd respondent, Ei-•. ALCLROO DKHTIS FI'AGAZWA, from Karimjee. ·parliamentary Hall,. He .jo:i.r1eci tbe Hon. Attbr1-iey-G-enerai, ' to the Petition, in Complisxwe with the provisions of Rule 4( 1), of the Elections, (El1::o,,?i6n Petit ions) Rules 1971 ~ hence to be called the rtRule::,11. . ·. I , rhe second respondent, not taking kindly•. the said 1 petition, in his l"eply to the peJci·:;ion,· posed three prelimin&ry objections, nam0ly:- (a) That the petition, was irtco~petent in that tbe petition ·does not bear., the signature of the petitioner•· (b) That the petition~. is bad for non•-rjoinder o.f necessary p~ 1.rties., (c) That the contGnts of the petition, are vague, thus· Jikely to delay a f o.ir trial~ of the rcul issues» in the Petitiort. The second respondent.~ himself bf iawyer I but a,i; this juncture unrepresented, sr(hmitted, a.t considera.ble lenth length, and extent, on prc:.iminary objection No. (a) above. He main:c;ained; having struck concurrence,., with the Principal State A ttor1iey Mr~ Kaduri:; appearing for the f il"'st respondent. ' that the petition, having not been signed by the Petitioner •• /3:.• 3 himself, though signed by his Aavo-co. te Mr. Kn.yo.ga, uas in law, no petition at 0.11, C?-tin[ tbe Tanga High Court case , Hise. Civil Cause no. .r-:.-•· -2/1985 ..(" •.. , •·, NUSi';J~ BUSIGl:..E, .. .,_..-.-=-:, ...,-. 4.-..,sc·--t'· • ._,___., .. a· ·•··•·· ,.,. ,• ~-,,.__ ·• '•· , ,. •·• .,,, ,-r.· .,..,,.,... --....,c-·:..--..-;oo"'' r r.i.:.f.•-= ... . .. ;sc -••--"'• ' 'PJ:GTBR ~~ h.NDREW . ..,f.·.:I" .,._.-".,....- ~ ·• -r. Fm~ ·•··l.·~:-. AHD ..-· ry~FE :aon. l:..T~o:::n-o~y GEFERAL r.:,,t.,..,t-.r ·•:··••-.., - Rf~SPOJ?DEHTS. •,•.r.·.~--~-,..___...·:·• .• ..,._.,,.1•-···•·"'•..t'"··' ~,_.,._..._,__., c;...-,.~-· ·•·• ,.,.,.,. •-., ... •-r, .•,_ .' ·:•i--, • ~ ,_,.._~. •· ~ ~,_,. They maintained.,· that the Advocate. to cori1petenly tdo as be : did- there should have bec.h, a formal power of Attorney. The Princi~l Sto.te Attori-it1y, Mr. Kaduri; went further, and added, that, even ORDEJ} VI Rule 14 df the Civil Procedure ._,._._-~,_-.z_.,,,_ .• ,~· ~-----•r;:1-- .....-~, t...-..4'..,,;f:::..o" ·" Code 1966, hence to be cai.l,?d the Code, dictated that every_• pleading, has to be signed bJ the party, and his Advocate, . aria for the Advooa te so to do on his own, he must be duly authorised so to do, and as this was not the cage, Rule 14, I was inapplicable• Oomihg to Preliminary objection No. (b), the second . ,( respondent 1 with . the acquic8cence, of ·the Principal . State, Attorney~ appearing for tb,J fil~st respondent, maintai n~d, that there was a non-joind:::r, of partie.s, as the petitioner, omitted to join the hither-to o.andidates of, TADEA, and NCCR,..MAG-E·uzl; to the petit:,.011, 11.hd as for Preliminary objection no, (c), the seGond respondent submitted, thnt the petitiori; rno.tetij_ally laclrnd specificity,· in particular pointing out po.ra 6 ( C); OJ3 being danger.ously pervaded with v0gucnces, n.nd ambiguity & He, sought that the peti-cioncT' be . . struck out~ 1:md be dismis:1ed,- either because of o.ny of the above objections, ·or becnuse of their eummulative effect of all, or any of them •. On the other hand,· 1'1-,'o Kayo.ga, a Tabora based l'.. dvocate, ., appeo.l"ing for tbe petitio:·1er, also then present, was uncondescending,. to the Si.lbmissj_ons above. It was Mr. Kayuga's submission., tho.t the petition was regular, _, ,:·.' \._ •.. 4, L. • 4 and immaculate. Reacting to. P-P.eli;:;Jino.ry object:i_qn No. (a) and 'Ghe submissions thereon, he, maintained, thc.t Rule 26 (1) ,...of the, mandates categorically, thc,t the practice, and. procedure,. in respect of an electioti petition, shall be regulated,· as nearly as pof'lsible., by t~2e rul0s :;:'ce:u1ating# the pro.c·cioe and procedure in Civil Suit, and tbat, that being the clear legal prov:.''..Giori, under OHDEH III Rule (1) ef ~.:..°4"".~-;.•._$.>,A.' ..... •.:.·•·•-$t':..>.4 the Code, an Advocnte may si.gn the Petition, on behalf of the :Petiti~ner, upon satisfying the legal, odnditions requisite, and need not have ·rormal power of Attorney, to sign the petition; for the Petitioner. He maintained further; that fl~l.~-•~:l4l P..t-~t~~~-:Il.1:l.~~!3.,,.~, .~~~2:·.<:.0:.~;...~~.~~.~ ~, .;.::-:. .1:?.i,1?.~,.-gr.n~~§._.t~i.. ~Ai~~.-_.. cu~-- ll~q ORDER VI Rule 15 of the Cod·e" give sufficient authority, to r.:.,~:....:.,,.c.:t._~•~,.-.-,.s,:-4#:-J • ...,~-·-~4-~'6-- ~ •• -r ."1 . ...:• ....... ;'6-•~•-•· ·"4- •~-~. 't-.>-••;?·'- ........ 1~ the duly engaged Advocate, t::J sign the petition on behalf of the ·retitioner. Mr. Kaynga, further submitted, that even if, the Petitioners failure to s:i.gn, .amounted to an irregularity, it is curable:, under Rule 27 of the Rules. As for Preliminary ob;jt:.ct7.0i.1 No. (b), tir~ K'"tyaga; withdrew tbe importo.nce, bu ho.d hither-to attached thereto, as he submitted that; the r:arne could. easily be victim; to ORD):iR VI Rule 16 -bf the Cede 196·6, by being st1"'uckout, ~~-...--------• .,.__ •• .,.. ~ .••• ..,_,,:,:.. ..,a,-,. ........... .:.,.._-; When it co.me to ~.c-eliminm:•:, objection- No. (c),. Ur. Ko.yo.ga submitted, ·that, the petH/~on wo.s not vngue at o..11, and that, if the respondents n::n"e hc.zy i or unclear about the so.me, the remedy lay in E .ioking, further nnd: better • po.rtiou1m"s~ which in tbi, 1 partisan bo..ttle 1 had. not beeri so ugh t n nytvay • 5 - rt is now opportune, for me to po.y respectful judiciul o.ttent_ion, to the Preliminary objections, of course so doing, after paying deserved tbanks, to the Principal ,, stc1.t0 Attorney, the 2nd respondent, o.nd l-1P. Kayo.zo., for• the constructive role the·~· dernonstPa'cod, ii.1 tbo. course . ;. of dealing w~th this, not ,1nit1:po:r-t::mt· r;10.ttc1"', il1 he ·:ereliminarj: objoction Ifo. (o.), that the petition, was ir:.coF,petent for l~ok of signature .of the Po ~itioner, on the petition, was given birth to,wben the pet:'! t:i.on) was signed by the petitj_oners Advocate l-ll"• ICayaga, for and dn behalf of the Petitioner, the Petitioner himself havin:s~ as per sffidavi t so authorised, upon his being ::::trahded, iri !l:'.r es Salaam. It is therefore over tho question, wbetlier, the Aevocate, ean, or mo.y, cornpetontl.y sign; an election petition, for on behalf of the petition01", t.ho.t legal battles were fought, o.nd who has won the wo.r, is ou1... mission, hende. Noving he-q.ce purposeru·.:.ly, it is, . as we pursue J?1,.eliminary I . objection No. (a), at the outset, to be discrerned, tho.t the nrutes 11 do not, themselve·s, i)Pescribe tho.t the petitioner, sho.11 p0rsonall;/ sign tl1e p2tition. ~:be rules woulcl have so.id so, if sudh signing, Fns non.i..delegable. But under tbe . .?.?•.. .t.~1,, . .C?L.,~!E.~, IL~}E.,~~~ t:1e provisions sto.tuto::y njo.ndate, of !l!:1. ~e,, of tr.1c 11 Code 11 J have ·00 apply muto.tis m·utm1dis,. to tbo proceedings,· in relation to elocti6n petitibns, artd in that very direction, Nr. Ko.yo.go. as duly enga.god by the ·petitionet>, was the .petitioners ·Ad.vo cute, under ORDER III R .7le (1) of the Code, opera.ti voly a . .-c;l\f,.':,F".c4,:.:=,#=C ...•,4'$':'C,t,._-,-.,,,-._,e, .1;..., .~, t" . .c...,;~a::.-..:=-=.,,,....--.rll distinct, fromLrcco3niscd n:rcnts, in Rul0 { 2), of the s8..me ORDEH of the Code. So fo.r and to tbis cxtont, "there is no raising of legn.l swoi->ds. But be as it rnny, 1n IUection Petition, being o. kind of, and in•·'the nature of pleading•~ it must fall within the wel-coming embrace I of· ~,_._.,._,,,.._._,.._zsc Rules 14 and OTIDJ~ VI •-s,t,.,..,-..--:a.·ur.•·..ten~•~-·1'.:"~'-~·. , • 15 .:-C'~~:.41 that stipulate that every pleading, - an election Petition not e.::rnepted, must, (.1) ~ be signed by the party and his Advocate,· if any, and ( 2) have the pleadings verifications. Thus accordinc; to the above rules, every pleadir.g, including the J!!lection Petition, mu;:tt be signed by the party and his Advoco..te, and according tc the proviso thereto, the signing by the party, is excused, c.mly by reason of his o.bsen~e, 0r ufor other e;ood cause_, 11 in ub:i.ch case, a person duly autboris2d by him may sign:. and same be verified accordingly, .. and Er. Kayago. maintained, <be did just that, for reason of absence, as disclosed in tho affidavit of the Petitioner, In prospect, Mr •. Kayaga not only. signe.d the Petition, but too, its VGrification. These are therefore, two areas, which need separated treat nent. 0 I ·shall start, with the signing of the -Petition b? Mr. Kayaga 's issue.. Tbe law 1"equires tba·lj, every piec.cling shall be signed by the party and his Advocate.. But, this is subjec)~ to the proviso, nhich is to the effect, that wb(3'.1'e the party, is by r_eas6n of ttabsence, ~ or _i'for other good reasou,· 1i o!' cause, unable to sign tbe plea.dins, it ma~, be sie;ned by ahy other pe1"son, duly o.u·~borised by him to sign the so.me, or to sue or defend, . . on his behalf• :Posing why such rule was made neceasary, . if I may so do, to clear our way., ~MOGHA 'S LAW OF PLEADDJGS s - ~ ~ , - J . r . . . , . . ..,,...~,_,_,, .. 1•-"-.,.,.,_~.,.,...,...._...,._-.,,,,.,,_~.,.,. ilThe object of th::.s rule, is to prevent disputes as to ~hetbcr the suit, was instituted with: or 1·n)cbout the plaintiff a knowledge, and Luthority.u If, it is cir-curns_pection and caution, that gave birth, to •• /7. 7 - the rule, and I am sure it is, then·any reasonably thinking person, has to appreciate. 'rhei-•e is no· disoute hereby the ·:Peti~cioner, that he gave suoh authority to Mr. •. Kayaga. But we should,· also neve1" forget, that the law is prornu]g.ated. by man, who µever fails to realise, his failings,frailty, and hm,1an impossibilities, and in the .circurostances of this· case, providin:3 a prbviso, a.s to· wba~ should· be done, in circunstances, wbere for rennon beyond his control, i.e. by reason of absence, or for other good cause, plaintiff/ petitioner, is.unable to sign the pleadings/petition. It is not, unpertinent •:;o relevantl-y pose again, ns tc,·. the nature of the plaint_iff/p~,t~tione:r' absence, or t other ~ good cause, that. is ih the oo~templation of the proviso. Opportune assistance, is frorn the above cited author; 11 It is only when the; party, is unable to sign tbe pleading, that his agent can do so. Here absence.,· is not sufficient, the absence · should be of such ~l nature, and kind, v.rhich makes signature impossible .• The words, 11 6ther good cause 11 ar~ of wide importance, and leave the matter in th_e discretion of the Court. Tbe Court~ should be satisfied, by affidavit, or oth•:.:·:>wise, that ·chere is a sufficient reason;, for dispensing with the sj_e;nature of the pn.rty, and tbat the person who proposes to s:icn the pleadinc, on his behalf, is an au~horised person. A formal application, shonld generally be mRde in such cases.,- and ~~ formal o;."der, should be •• /8. Misc-.Civ.Gause No.15/95. ~-..~-a-.-.•::e.,-_--.,, •. ...,_ ..-, t.· •...-.-d,.-t,..:r.,..~T•A""c1'·•"'_._ •~'--1' • .-~~::.<S-A 8 recorded by tbe Court, but no notice of any such application, is necessary to be served on the otter party_. Though such a formal application, is nowhere rnentionec: in the Code, yet it becomes necessary, in order to~ explain, a finc1ii.1G f:-.:>or.i the Court~ that the reason is sutficient, This can also be stated, in the pleading, in a separated para, or :ln a note, at the end. It is not necessary,, that person authorised, E.2.<2.':}~..9,...~!?.~.,~~EJ?l: 9r.~.~e .<\ ·,SJ2.~~~~.f.i.~::.?}Y.,._,~9.~.~~P. _~h.e. P. .~. .e-~c!_~11~• . A general o.uthority to sue, or defend, on behalf of the party in sufficient." In the case instant, although Advocate Kayaga, made no formal application, as such, he we.s very self-explanatory, in his affidavitj and a note of tbe petitioners absence, and being stranded o.way on -safari_ mo.de,_ in the petition itself. If Mr. Kayage., was duly enga3,::;d as an· Advocate, to sue, and br defci1d; on behalf of tbe Petitioner, I can easily riultivat~ my~elf, to dbrtclude, that the Petitioners absence. having mo.de,· the signing of the pe.tit ion by him, impossible, Mr. Kayago. a duly engo.ged Advocdte had the rnando:te; and in my view he did competentlJ sign the petition, f'o~ and on behalf, of the ~etitioner~ It is my firm, conclusion a albeit modest,. that,lduly 0ngaged Advocate may competently sign the petition on behalf of the Petit:ioner, where by . reason of the latter~' s absence,•sigr1ing the petition by the Petitioner himself, is ma5e impossible~ I am not oblivious, cf course, withoµt prejudice to the 2,bove, to the contention, by the learned Principal State Atto1,.ney, who emphasised, that 9EJl~~~J~.~~-~-~.14., _9.f...,.tJ?.~. •• /9. - . 9 Q~q!}., the "ED£..~l. P::~9.-.J~if~. fi .~Y.~£?-!-~~-}£..~~EL~' i.e. both, have to sign the, pleading. My firm rejoinder, on the construction -of this rule, ia as folloHs.· li1irst the scheme of the rule, shows tho.t, the pt:1.rty may sign his pleading, realised as it should be, th::.~.t, ci·cher b0.cause of financial incapacity, or out of .-shee;i;, choice, o:." ;)Ption, an advocate is not a!.r.rays enge..ged. Second, in tbe co;istruction of statutes/Rules, where ·che conjunctive and d:°i.pjunctive worcls, are used therein; one ho.s to be ccu'eful, for i·i; is sometimes legitir:Jate, to read the conjunctive und dis;>mctive words, n~~~, and u ~ one for tl-:.e other, where litcI'nl interpreta.tion, would defeat the intentions of the legislature, or the object of the Act. In other words, the word;::: "orH, can be reo.d as 11 and" and the ..,.....,.: ........--;... a:-.4·, .. ~ wo1"'d. 11 and1 can be read as 11 gz,.~J. whe1.. e it is necessnry to do so, to give effect to the ·intention of the legislature., see MUFICIPAL CORPORATION_,,._,.,_,,_.__,<L,~.-...-: ~~,:at:,,._._$,._..~., .. n ... OF if'lDEPJiBl~D VS: '.!~V SAHPAIR ,i,. • •_,,._~o•cJ'•".a.ll A"NDBRA .a.•-=-=~.,_,_.._.••.• :-,.• ......_,-&=4 .,.,,,_,. ~.,r.,_-,•-•a.11.1...:a.,.;:;.a"- _.,.._,.. ..e,.,,.,c,....-,:..,..&. ,.,._.--.,.,,.~_,.__.__-.,._,_ ,·•-:·"2>'..,..._n•• •••-•---~_.. :, • ~ 11;1£lP~<:¥;L~..!. Applying the ah,ve to the case., in :point, one may o.'l."gue, that if the law f.Ilous,j one to engage a.n Ldvocate, wi-l;bout qualifica'cion, or L~rnitations, tho sG.id ii.dvocate having drawn tbe pleading, ·.vby c8.n't be si1sn for, and on behalf .of the party, that, ·:::w.s so enguc:ed him, if -cbe said party is not -a vaila.ble,.. or bas .f'ull~ en~ar(ed sucb Ldvoea'Ge. 1 pleQ,_di'nEfB . . ·----. :Further, if the purpose of '..s:1~.:.:,.-::·;_,}i~., is to fix responsi- . '-- ' bility for institating the fmit, under the principal and agent relationship, is the party who engaged an Advocate, not to beheld responsible, for vThat the Ad~ocate has done for him? . --- - see Section (3) and. -.:,.,s·=--=t.,_,.. ( 40)_,. ,.)f the Advocates Ordinance Cap. •- •--~- 341. . . _,...,.-.u..-.-,~,,,. c = . a : ~ ~ ! t :..r___ ~-- ,.. __ .,:.....,,,,,,_..,._ ..-,:::.,::e., -..,,.,._ ~•- ,...,_,....._~. ~ t.."> t .•,-,.:4. f•.=-•~""'4::.on~..--:z.......,itc:~-,..~•-·-.:a,~--t;, •.,J.l,.•.'"-•.,-~- ~t~J?.!,_,.)....4..1• And still furthe-~'., of as .pointed out; if the signigg of pleading, is to identify undisputabli the one who- . has put, or occasicimed. ~the suit to be in legal., Jt1clieinl motion, of what sense is it_., to hnve both the petitioner and •• /10. 10 his Advocate, concurrently signing the petit;ion, when the Petitione1i.s a Principal, co.n in law be held responsible, for the o.cts of his agent, - his Ldvoco.te, - that the suit was instituted through the •Princ:i.:p1.l 's instructions. I remain therefore, unpersuaded with ·:jhc i--espoct, by the submissions that Mr. Kayag;~-;, was not competent to sign on behalf of tho Petitioner, o_-;1d in 1,Jy view, tbe conjuctive word_ 11ana11 is more rational :Lf read as, 11 or". Before, I move, hence, .c. r,J-~.st make pertinent observations, on the Tang:a High Court Miscet.laneous t:.:--.:=a,,&._,_..__.,.,, •.·,--......,..,..,.,._,.,.. .r=.-•• .• ,, Ga.t1se liJ"o. 2. of 1985, ...::.,.-,....e.._.,_,.:..,.a. 11.-.r. •• ,-.·~~t..:.•.-&.--••• .,.., • r-111.·.,r ,.&.,.:·r.· C:'.s.•,,.c..,. i , •·••• _ _ _ -t,;.Q.. -•~-....,,.--.._-~.-~-'••-•··-'·· r::.:--.:..C ,. ·",... cited by the 2nd respondent, tn support of his submission. With due respect, while I do verily and heartly, appreciate .the energy, and efforts labor,i.ously invested., by the 2nd. respondent, it all the same dc:0s appear to me, tbo.t the eo.se ~s distinguishably mile 3 8.pm"t, with the case a. t hand. In o·ther words, first, in tLt: cited case, while there never were actual petitioners, in this co.se, the petitioner is . there, and was present in C-.::urt. Second, while in the cited· case, the petitioners names.I' thoue;h lis:!:ied o.s such, the s8.id. names, wer•e just o.ppendaged the:;."eto, Hithout the knowledge, consent, or nutho1"ity, if ·'.;be m-rnors o:::' the names, while here, what the Ldvocnte did wo.s; with the o.u·chority of the petitioner hi1;1self o..nd personally. L::. law, you cannot hn.ve n.n election petition ca.'se, without n p~ti·cioner 1 as in the cited oo.3e, see Rule (3) of the Rules~ while in this, case we have a -·~·~::<e:t."".-#,;. ... ,,,,, ... _ , . ••.• , •• _. ""' , •• ~, ................., ........... , ........... ·:• .•.••• n:- ,.~ Petitioner n.nd hence an EJ.,.?ction -:f>e·tition. Sorry though I am here;. I ho.ve to say -cho.t the ci·::.;'Jd. case is distinguisho.b1'1 inc.pplicablel Verification of the i:,,3tition, is ::mother aspect, uhich missed ·che attention of tt::! respondents, though o.lso effe:>cted. by signing by ;_10rson, other than the petitioner himself. Without boating nbout the bush., it is lrnotrm, procedural • • ;11. 11 lavt, that in addition to being signed, n. plea.ding, has to be verified., by the party, or one of 'che po.rties plea.ding, or some ·other person pPov0d, to ·che ·sc.tisficntion of the Com."'t, to be acquainted., ·'ir~th the facts· of the cn.se, see Rule 15 (1.) ORDJ~;R VI of tbe Gode. ~ ~ . " ; • f ' • • ' & ... t,.:,: ..... ; .... , ..... ,,.~••••,r,_ .. ,r.•.., .. "'¥°>'1k . . . . . . . . . . . ;,.61s.<'• •tc,•f' .. ""• r" •• • •• I 0•-••t, .f",.c,•1-.. -..• ~ ~-• Wbile at ·ch:i.s juncture, one is tempted to see, if .1.n subst~,.~1ce., tbe:ee is indeed. any distinct::..on., betucen th~ rnq_uirer;10nts of signci.ture, on the plec.di:;,1g, cmd tbe verificnt:i.,)n of the smJe. It would. seen to ;"1e, th£tt tber•e is such d:;_n"cL:ct:.i.on, for while the sig11ing of· the pleo..dinG by the pa.rt-;,7 :t oI' bis nuthorised D.Q:ent, is necesm1.ry to show that plenc'::L~Q:~ or petition, has been lode;ed i·Ji,~h tbe 1-mowled~e, ~]_;1-J authority of the:pr,rty, verificc.tion is nec,nt to fix :;:•es:;or..sibility, for the statements adjudico.:tion. In this vie'tv"' I enjoy strong, solo.ce and confort, from ......NOS-HA'S LhW Qt:' I=Lif:LDING- 14th gan. · paae--·-·-.£;-- - ...... ~.-4"".-.-...,..,."-...,...,., .. ..... 54 -i ..,._.... , -~ ... -~-~ • . . "'' .., ... ~ , __ , · · ~ · - ' • " • • · · · · · - - · - · · · - -------- • • u..&, , ,•• · •. , . ~ ~ , , . where be says:- t11J~he distinction between tl1e l"'equirernents of signat·ure, and veFi.fication .iihould be. noted, while the plea.dinr; should be signed only by th e parcy, J ( n] '] par t ies, or~·- ·• ) or in • specia • 1 case, only by hi;.:; authorised agent, a verification may ]Je made by any one person, either the po.rty.,; or any one of the parties, or any other per::c)n acqunintea., with the facts, the laxity in the; .latter case, is due to the fact thnt, while ;;ign.n.tures a.re necessary to show that, the. pleading has been filed with the knowlede:D, und o.ppPoval of the po..rty, the object of ver :Lficntion, is only to fix 0 responsibility, frn• stc..te;:.;ents rnade t1,e:r-~in, upon some one, before 'cbe Coui.,.t proce(::)ds to o.djudicated upon ·cbemtt. ../12. 12 While Rule 15t···•(1) .. ORDFE e,;:---·,tc-.·"'· VI of ......... :,-... ,., .. , 11.c..·~., ... the Code, may be chnrncte:d.sed ...... \.,.•.•.•. ,. ...__ ·1-· _..,, ; . , ~ ,_ . ....,. ...... ; ..... -.. ·st-.=,,s•-J/l ....... :a.,( Hith lo..xity, fixing and attaohing 1.. esponsiblity, fol.. stc.ter,,ent to be verified, and the qualification for beetring the srn:,ie, is no easy, or 1ight rnntter. In other words, in :ny bur,ible o.nd modest vJew• who.t I wmTc to rmt ncross, . , is tbat the responsibility o.tta.ched to verificntion, is very g1"eett, and jcbe reo.lisction of that is dutifully s.dvised. Verificrct:i.on, in my view caD_, neither, be done by proxy j nor through delegation, without that Laportant quo.lifica..tion, that tbe same to be done by per.son, other than tbe party J •' himself, if such other person,' be ltcquainted with the fao~~, being deponed. Ont.this aspeot, HOC'.·HA "'S LAW OF PI.Z•:ADIJ:trrs 14-th .,a.·.r._,,,..,.__.,_,__.._,,..,..,,. ~-•"_,._,..._.,~-~. ,._.,...,_._, ...:. '"' r: ._, ..._._,._.....,_,..,.,,.,. .:.t· .,.._,,_..,.._,...,.,•• edn. page 55, has this to em~1c.sizc:- _,.. uBut n0 one ( except a party}:, sbould be allowed. to verify a pleadiT1g, unless he is able to verify the main ellegatiocs, on personal knowletlge, for otherwise, he cc,nnot st1"ictly be sc.idJ to be abquaint(i;!d witb the fo.cts. :i:t is true, tbo.t "ricque.::tntod 11 J is a w:i.de woi~a, and may also i·,1ear 11 0..cquo.int0e 11 , on the authority of info:i:'mation received from o-cbers", .. but having the p::'oper object of verification, in view, Courts l::i.11 do well if, in case the man verifying, i:; not able· to verify, the main allegations on h\s peronsal knowledge, they refuse, to regard such a man, as one acquainted . ·with the facts or the case. Of courtte, o.bout minor facts, or matters of detail the verifi- cation, may be en information l"eceived". In this case, Mr. Kayaga, based his verification, not on personnl knowledge, but on information received from the •• /13. 13 ... · ·petition,er•· who he -b~lieved to be 'Gruthful. In my view, an Jnection l'etition, is· a t-1e:i.gbty matter,. in which the petit :i.one1" once d.efea·l.ed, and has elected to challenge the l"'csults, alleging elootoral sins, h~ has to bear the heavy cross, 8.nd :verify the allege.tj.ons, in the petition. Por tbe above r0asons~ it - woµld. appear to rne, that weighty as t,he matter is, Hr. Kay['.ga, with due respect, was not the ric:ht agent to verify ·::.he petition, H-anting in personal hinself should have done sc, Tbe travail to this jtFJ,Jture, with respect, exposes us to tbe question, as to what '..s the legal effect of• (1) failure to sign pleading/pet:i;tion, ·t;hough I hn-Ve i~ ~his case, held the same was corn:J1.:;tently signed• and ( 2) -of c()rnmissioh . to verify; or de-f ebti ve ve::.,i:d.cation? Pi:i."st~ for (1), above, wbich I bo.ve held regular, assuming I am wrong, thotigh I strongly feel I am not, fen" the avoidance of doubt, the answer is not far to seek at all,- for HULLA '. s, __ . IE TEE CODE 01;, CIVIL .,.,.:;f.·~~.,... ,..,,..,.,~~ .... =•4,. ..-...e.: • ..-:- ., . -:it. •.·:•·- ,. .__ J":...; ••••• t,,.t;,:a. ••....,~-""' ~ " "The siCTning of plaint, is merely a matter of procedure, If [, plaint, is not siened by the Plaintiff, or b:1 any pcn•son duly authorised by bim, in that bebp.lf, and the defect is discovored, a,c any tirne befO'l.."e judgment, the Court, rnay allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint by signing the same, •••••~~• The ommission to sign, or verify a plaint! is not such u defect, as coulcl affect the merit.n of a cc.se, or jurisdiction of the Court iio--.-• ~ •·-• • • J:t can be set right, even ~fter the •.• /14'• expiration of th,~ limitation period." . -•.:· . . li_~<!._~J__ty_4!·g~ se li9-!e...15L2.i • ... '~~...a, And dn verification of plec,ding, ,-na. :i.f I may addj election pet~tions,· the· sc.rne 1-.WLLf_ at page 428 1 • has this to say:- A pleadii.1g which :;_s not verified; in the manner required by this :i.':)le, nay be verified, a'h ate· late~:::'st:?.se, of t_hc suit, even after tbe expiration of the licito.tion p~riod. The ommission, to verify · a pleadinr:;, is a me::_,t') irregulo.rity within the · 1,10aning of Section 9:} of ·che Code. r.rhe . Sup1"erne Court has observed, 't"iictt where the verificn.tion of a plaint, oropeti·::,·'._on · is defective, that should not normally be reje,~·~ed, but an order should, be rnr,de for its o.r:1end:.ienc 11 • And HOGH.A 'S LAW Oli' PLEADINrs ''""'~"'"_...~~"t-.....,. . .:.~~ .....-,_.._..,.,P .,,.~-.-,..::,1.,:.•.1-·,_.t~~=S="_,....,.~ at -~x1ge 58 t..--~~-4._..:a;:;a..,.:..._.~ .•• .._.;J••-&•- ~,nff- . - . ~ - . consistent with MULLA aboV9' echoes the same, thus:- "Want of signaturcr or verifico.tion, or a.ny defect, in eithe::'.-• will not rnake the pleo.ding void, and a suit oa.nnot be dismissed, nor ear} the defence be n-;:l"Uclrnut, si:nply for want of, or def0ct, in the si~no.ture, or verif"icntion of the plaint, or -.:-~l'itten statement, us thei->e are matters of proc(~c}ure only. It has been trea.tedj to be n1ere irrert1lurity, and curable by a.mendme·ntn. It sb~uld tberefore, wit1) respect, now be settled ~aw, th2,t~ -1- that want of signatu~o, or verification, or defect in ' . Oither are r.Jatt~r~ olt' pr,.; (;ed~re, -2 .. that i3uctt t,ro.nt of signature, dr verifica.ti,~:1, ox• defect in either, are curable irregularities, and -3- ·\herefore sboul<l riot, by, mere reason thereof,· be re;:i.son for di.smissing the suit/petition, or - 15 - strilring out othe defence, -4- thnt procedural p:N>v·isions, ~hould be construed iiberally. Ano these being a.rens, that are indeed of procedure, o.nd . . in the construction procedu9al l.o.w. or provisions, o.s it was po,inted out, in the case c,f the Courts should a.ll•m:ys i:>enr i~ mind, that, . . ~ 11 c-.s far as ~~.ra..~-~--•"'4=--c--.a •possible ,,,_...,._..,.,.,:........;..,,-•.-- •••••-•·•t,_;;a-no uroceedimr ••"- O,c_/:_,.. -~ · in n C:Otsrt of Lo.w· ._.....,'Q~---•~•-••••,..all•'-~__;:,·.,,.,, ,t,: •· -11:-d'. .... ~-..... - ~ - -~ :-i·,-~••'••, • • should be allowed. •• .. r, _,._ .... ,#• ..... .J••• .-...-;-_...,_"-4••.#I••-&: ............ •• ~ : . r ~ to be defected on mere technioa.lities 11 • -=.......... ~ .......•--~-~-,... ,...,,__........ .,,., .-........... --~-~.,.1, .....~--......-..........,......__. ____,..-.._-_...... .,..,_-:.._...... _,,--.#.,,•te-..-.-~...- ·Positively endorsil\g say: ... 11 It (procedure) is, something designed to facilitate Justice.!:, n.nd furt'her its ends; not a penal enactme~t for punishment, and penalities, not o. thing designed to trip the people up. Too technical a C(>nstr4ction of Sections, that leaves no roorn for.reasonable elastic:Lty, or inter-pretntion, should therefore, be guo.rded . . . against, (provided always, that, justice is done, to both sides)_;. lest the -very means designed for _the t:urthera.nce of justice, be used to frustrate it 1•~.' Thus, if justice is sought o.ndnis to be· done, it sho·u1a not be undully sacrificed, or. the expedient table:,• of procedural technicalities. In any case.\ if, irregularities these are, , I am sure, they c1nnot occc..sion a miscarriage of justice, and are cura.ble under the curative rule 27(1) of the Rules. In this case, preliminary objection (o.), for reasonsso.bove fails, and verification by the petitioner personally, shall be allowed. Cor.1ing to Prelin1innry objection (b), the ·second respodent, complo..ined of non-join<~er of necesso.ry pc.rties. While this was not sayin5 1;mch, uneJcplanc.tory . ns it was, ,it c.ctun.lly subsequently tm'ned out., , th:J.t tbe 2nd l"es:Jondent, was coDpla.ining why, the Tl~DEA ,NCGR-1-JllGEUZI, hi tberto parliamentary cn.ndidntes., ~-rnre not made pc,rt:'._es to tbifl petition. The second reppondent, w~s actually attacking · para 6 ( b)., 0f the petitiop,; In entert~ining th is obje~tion, I ho.ve found eliffieul ty in trppreciating, why., the 2nd respondent nls.o wanted., the 2a:p.d1'.clates qf •rADEA., and IifCCR-MAG-LUZI, to join the pntiti-o,:n(;;!rs, so to say to gang against him, in order to unnoo.t him. :Ct- ·aeen1$ to r.1epto be a masochist.to behuviGur, on the part of ,the 2nd respondent, in so desiring. H·owever, I c.m not di.sposed tc:r deny the objection., judicial treatment. Governing parties., and ih pnrticula.r, who may be joir.nd., as plaintiff/petitioners, to the suit, election peti ;ion, not excepted, is Q.~~.-1.9,.,:t ~~--£~~-~ It would seem t: me, that the essentials of suit/ petition., o.re four., no.r.1el~ r -1- opposing pm,.ties, -2- subjeet in d.ispite, .;..3- cause of : --~tion, .a.r,Jd -4- demand of relief &-o see ..u~,.._,...,,._~ ORJ)j3!R... VI! Rule I of t· !S Code., Thus under 0RDER It Rule ~-*-'·-·':it:.,.-s..:;.,_, .....:.. _·,~• ~•-•t:::••-·.·.,.....,~ ' ...... :.~,_,.,c .... -----: .,_., c:up....q •. -t;,,..- ..4~:..k-..-----=--....~'l.i··· .......~ . _()). of the Code; the plc i n.titf; rnuy df bis otm free wiil join one, or several defcri.do.nts., for a single., or several causes of action, subject to ,ecuniary or subject oatter1 jurisdiction, Fnc:}er Rule (::) OTIDJ!R II, a.s reo.d toGether ~_..,_._ -~- .,,.,..c.,:-•. ~. ------~--~ ... ,............. _ ....,...,,_ ______ ..,a,.,,:.... , • ......_,. . ' with, rule ( 3) ORDER - ( 2), or tb e Code, ..--..--,.,...•&:,:.a,.:--~• . even several pe1"sons t.•,r..•••-.-.•·•··•'· ..•......,_·..-··· .. ··•..- • may, join as plaintiffs., :.n one suit, though their causes of action be separate., nr :!. distinct., provided:- (o.) ·rhe right to Pelief., r.lleged to exist . . in them, arir ,rn out of the same act, or transactions: ·or series of nets., or trc.nsactionf' or •• /17. .15/95, 1-:isc·H}iv ~Cc.use l!o~...._........_._....l:'2-...,. ~-a:aat..=..--~,........ -'l.:_4" ..______ •.. , ..; ~~; ....... ~~- (b) The ca.sej is of such c.. no.ture, O'.i.... chnro.oter thr..t, if such persons brougbt· suits,- any common question of lo.w, or fact w6rild nriset In ·this case, uhile -;:-.; 1.e e-lectim:s, tool: oii tbe . snr,Je dny, and dnte, the 2r~:; :.."ospondent 's cou:)lr_int -provokes 'j;he following 'reservations;:._ -1- it is sheer g)oct1l8.tive, to think. thnt cor;iplairits by th2 petitioner, wduld _necesso.rily _be the sa.r::ie; us .those of TA.D'~'Jl, or NCCR-Mll.G-EUZI, or both .,... fo~ tbe petitioners, to decide wb.:rcher their compl::1:Lr/;s a.re justicin.ble, as .to need. . remedy from the dourt, it ir:; preposterous, for the 2nd. respondent to ask why they H,s:ee not joined ag;.dnst him~ and ~.::3'J., the petitioner, hao no mo.ndo.te to speak on their behalf,nor force them to jo:in liim, in the o..ttack of the respow1ent, after all 1it ir I think, as dernocr·o.tic to decide to contest the elect:tons, '.:;3 it is dcnocrntic for o. defeated Candiclat0,to decide not to petition~ngo.inst the successful . . candida.te, whatever the ro:1sons, o.nd in any case, so speo.king~ neither 1helps the petitioLe.,r, rio1" tbe hitherto co_nd.~dates fol"' 1rf...DE[~ o..nd l!CCH-lY.iAGTI!UZ~:.~ ct.'t all. This object:.Ol";.j bas no me:rits, and tbe· so.id. ::tubp:,.:c'a 6 (b) sliould bo strudk frOiil the petition, ns su:perfluously useless, :cmd unco.lled for, und it is. Tho Prelir.i:Lnary objec:·;;:ton Uo. ( c), is tho.t the contents of the Petition, are vugu,:)"' n.nd therefo~c>e likely to clelo.~r a. fair, trio..l of the r0rtl i:.-1-;ues, in the petition. The 2nd respondent picked up paro. ·; { c) to demonstrate bis case, while the lecn. . rn::-d stc,te Attorne··r su.brni tted. on the issue, geneJ:•o.11 t. T\n1ile the respondents wer,) fast, to pick our pa1"11 6 ( c), of . . /18. Misc.Civ.Cause No. 15/95. .,..:.:..a.. "'" __ .......... ~ ...............::4......... __ ........ ..a:. ....... .,.,&=,-4-'9-., .......: . c t r . , ; : . ~ ~ 18 the petition, n.s vague, n.nd .too genei"'o.1; the so.id same two respondents; were hence too genel"'ous, in rny viow., to give r:ie a blo.nl~ cheque, and invite ;;;e., to d:... cn-J it in terDs, that o.11 the con·cested po.re.graphs, :5-n tbe pc·cition, wore too vague and too general, to be acc0µto.ble, c.nd the::."'efo1"e should be given n judicial deo.th sentonceo The ~nvitntion is te □ ;ting, b u·c' no t ·---~ ., J. -'·'oou'· l, l, ('"·1r•ers· !u.J. ::: • In my vieu, this pro,osition, if -1- tho.t i,1 every pleading, c.. '.!onside:t.,c.ble o.nount of details is necessc.:. "J to avoid. surpris,3 011 tbe oP:_;osi te po.r>ty, -2- that all the sc.:..:-:.: there is no prec:L.'_;e formule., about tbe c1egr0e of po.rticulo.ri ty, or specific:J_·~y i->equir'ed, though it suffices to so..y that, all the other pUYL y rer-.sorn1bly needs, is a fc,ir outline, of the case of the r:i~intiff, r.md to hc..ve n.11 the particulars, that will enabJ.o bim to l.;:now his o::;ponehts case, c.nd. therefore be nble to prep:i.re hir;:solf, and -3- ·cbr:tt such deto.ils, or particulars, ho.,?£) the object of narr·ouii:.g doun it:Jsues, and lirnitine the inquiry, o.t the trial, to tbe disclosed issues. Lnd if I may add, this being on election petition, to be construed strictly, the ~ule relcting necessc..ry details, considei-•i-;:1g that the verdict- of the electorate is put to the test, assumes Greater importance. In the co.se of ;, ::-:::;~:·· ·-~•,:;-:~:::;-:.--r.·.·.· ~--=-·- C ,..,· . .,,, .......... ~~ .r.- t... .......... _.f>--/:• - · " Indian, SUj_)reme Court, whiJ.E, discussing the importnnce of particulars, observed:- HT1::ere can be no re·:.sonable doubt, tbc.t the requirement of fu1.l. po.rticulnrs, is one tbect bus to be complied with, with sufficient fulness o..nd cla.rifico.tion, so o.s to enc~bl0 the ../1 0, _., ~ - and they must be such, as not to tu~n the inqui:Uy before the t:.."'i·ounc,l:, into a. 1"m-;1bling., und rcning ~.nq_u:.:.sitionil ~ So i:;mch :::or tbe irnportancc of necorrnc.ry c1ctc.ils, cmd even is po.rticulc.I'So!> But with res::,)ctJ> after c,llLso..id c.nd done, whose cluty is it, to apply .tor further particulo.1"'s,, of the j_)leo.ding of the plr..intiff, , .,.f the plaint/petition: is ·wnnting or particula.rs,is a question not without relevance he:i."e? I,:: my ve::-:,y modest, opinion, it is tbe duty of the defend:in;t/respondent., too.o.pp'.~J for further 11articulc.rs, of the plecsd~.:~tg of his opponent:; i:·rhet•e he thinks, no pa.rticl'lo.rs· were given, or if given., the~, ·:,rere not given in sufficient deta.il, not only to be able tc prepare birnself with his defence, to be but nlso"t:ble to pin down, his ndvorsary, to definite case.11 and for this course, QB..!t~,:;:.J-.J..~}-.~..2~ of the Code, ha.s its gates, indicr-iminately una )·Jrmissi vel-y i open. In this case., while th~- i"espondent's e.rr.1ou.ry~ for o.rnmtmition WC'-S fUlli> r:nd ho.d o.ctuo.ilN cpened c. front~ fo:r• a.ttc.ck upon; and: actuall·,y d:i.d o.ttetck the pet:'i.tj_on; they ~;ere o.t tl1e sn1;1e time . relu.ctc,1Tc to lmon., ubo1"e t"1:) petition uo.s ~mntingJ> - they never c.::_;i:1:~.ec'\ f 01~ bettor, J.nd further ~)o.rticulnrs nt o.11. Thus whi.l(, I concGde, that ;_)8.rc-t 6 ( c) of the petition, coulC: be better Cetailed~ the respoJdeuts avoidnnce of o.pJlication, for better. p::-.rticu1c,rs 1 but sc-ildng ·:;he nssistance of o. more drc.stic 01xcion, that tbe s·n-:::e to be s·truck out, strickes :\;rn o.s odcl, cts1 a )eculinr curiou f.dty. Sbnll I, the1"efoi•e for tbis reo.son, ")ose a question, _, :..J'ho.t is the l0gc.l position, wbe:c"'e the pnrticulo.rs c.re not gi-ren, o.nd the opposite 1x1rty does not r. .....~ .....~.!1-:--~'-.:.f"", •• .,, ~- ,.,_,,.,__ ,cc:.,'f •. -a ... ...._ ..... ..f. t , ... , ...... ·,C.----- a.ppl:y :i:'m.:a a.ny? Ls tbe spi:,ituo.l uouriDhnent., Ha.nno., to tcJe IsJ:>o.eli tcs cq.me fi~orn hea.ve:n, equnll;/ o.t the rec,dy, is t':rn 20 J.X,'.go 6iprunning thu.s:- :.:a •.t~--: ,- .. .u-.--1 11 If purtiaulars a.re not gi vcm, cinc1 ne:i.tber.; the opposite po.rt;r, appliefJ for tl10n 9 nor does ·cbe Court insist on their being 8et outi :'_n tbe pleo.ding, the party pl0r.C.in~ uould be orr~~-tled to give evidence, of all c.nd r..ny fc.cts Hbich suppon.t his o.llegt:1t~ton 11 " Thl1s$ where full partim;,~'. ars ho.ve nojc been given by the plnintiff/_)•s1titioncr, and thE, .:cenpondent ho.s not applied fol"' \ . ' . . _the sume •. ·the plaintif'f/Petitioner:, pleading, shall be1:1.r b.is bul"den of .,~,;."'oof . , and. be entit~.3d to adduce evidence, in support of hi,s ali0go.tions·~ . l:t follo t:.; 1 tbat the remedy for lo.ck or so f·L• a.s the 2nd defendo.nt/respondent, a.deque1.te particulars, in is conce1•ned is not to seek ·>_, ha.ve the pnra.s struck outi _ crossing the bridge betot-E·- 1 ,~01-;iing to it, ~ but t:J defensively, a.clJ.:Jissi bly traverse ev:iidencr.:, gi Ven in proof of such n.ll·egntions, But i,;:1-th rcspectl the :Li1ndequacy of- pnrtic"t.1lnrs is one thine;~ r-,nu se1,.,ibus· massi~e r::i.gue:rn in pe.t:i:cion"s ~c.:.:•o.gro.:,hs, o.nd too gc;_10r['.l is yet nnc·cber • ~rn ile the :·'crmePJI is rernedo.ble eo.cl.ly, in the Election Pe:titions, the lc:i·/.,er o.ssuncs u different.,, :::mcl lc,rge dimension: o.nd weight. beyohd the requisites of nn ordinc,ry suit. I 3et comfort to so nc,y, fror.J HOGI;AS LII.W OP ?Lft'...ADIES-8 -~~----~- ..J •• ; ; .:. ~ 0 ~.•.:.:, -·•• ••· 0 10:.:..: ,• : ••, ... L . 1i:.ro this extent the powers oi' tlrn Com.,.,t, in. :"c-..3:::-.r<l to permittihg c..mendment of nn elec·:;ion ::,ctitj_on, are narrt.mer tbo..n the po1-rers of o.. Court tc :,errnit a.mendroent of ploo.dings in a Civil Suit., • ,,/211 • • 21 one irnporta.n.t reason being, thc.t f·a :_;etit:Loner in c.n election cnse, cnnnot cla.im.11 t:~e scx,1e ln.ti tude of rn-dtic~1s of ·equity, or just:i.ce, o.s n p:taintiff' in o. Civil' Suit, for in c.n election petition, the enti:re electornte is inv:)l7ec: o.nc1 the fight is not iu respect of Civil 1"i:.h·'.:; s of two private purtier-,,-1 the Court are tl:e:.:,e-iore loo.th, to interfere J.:l~b'c:ly with tbe Collective fur c;reater stric~nerrn, in election disputes, is t!~ -:t· o.llegutions of oorru.pt practices, are • • . 1 in qur.s1--cr·1mJ.na . na·q,11"'0, . an d. proo f· o f a single corrupt practice, mo.(-1'1 be fatal to o.n elect ion, h C nc e !3..;"22*~tt;'};-~•. .;12.1:~~ ..,Ii}:.~L.~.~2:?.-.,.?..,ILEE.9.~ enj O i ne d. • i Hence; :tf lhe trlater:l1ctl :.:'o.cts c..re o.lrea.dy sto.ted, then more and ijette:t- ptirtidulars ce.n be given J lo.tei", but if .th'e urterto.i facts tbemselvos, are WE',nting in the oi->i f.I~ai i)etitloh• they co.iin.ot be 0 o.lloHed to be sup~::-:.:;·_;_ea through umenclrnent., c.s tbn.t ~Juld araount tc mr.te a fresh petition••••••• and if tbo :;etition, 5 r: bn-sec1 solely on such c.llesations, cs do not 1,mke otr'.. uny statutol"'Y, ground nt all, then Thus we :;c.rdly r,eed serio1·n conceptualisc.tion, to so.y tbc f ollo1-lin3: - (i) That an election j)etition, st[;_nds on a 1,1ore .:-:serious and. str::.0tel" podest;il, for it involves not onl:' the c1il"'ect parties, but o.lso tjuos~ions,~"o collective terdict of the Tee/22. Electorc.te., in the Constituency, unlike norrnal Civil sui·cs, which only involves parties~ (ii) Tbnt where corrupt pructices are a.lle3ed, it is clenr that th~y ,::.re quasi-criminal in 110.ture, if proved, they pz,ovoke negative consequ2.nces, as pointed out in Sect::.cns 94-, 96, of tbe :i:nection Act 1985, ns o.::,1ended by Act No. 8/1995, - ::.md he;.1ce they must be fu:1-1y and, with sufficiei.1t rno.terin.ls c..nd facts, r:.iJ_)e~ifico..lly plended. ! (iii) The.··-~ wbe:r:e the allegnt:i.bns in the petition, do riot ci.mount to statutory grounds, the petition may be c'.ismissed under ...,,.,.~~• o:aDlt,ff!II Rule 11 of t:1e CoGe.- ... •""-t-t.ft..~-·L~--c,.·-F_,.._.~. Applying the C:.bove, tQ thci preliii1:l.nnry object5.ons, in ., pm:>ticulo.r objection Eo. 6(c); wbich I shnll first trec.t, ~ I 1t is to be descerned~ that 1n that sub-para, ~be petitioner . I nllec~ed that the second res:d;ndent, did corru :-it1:,- b~~- tins of 0 locr..1 brew for the drinkers. 1 j o.nd further co:.,ru:-::·'jl~" _c~.ve l shs. 500i::;, to· each non-dri:-L:ers. 1:"or n.11 we l.::nmr;; electoral •' ij corrupt prctctices, bribery, / J..re electoral offe·:1c0:::, unc:er I Section 94-, 96 of the Elec-ctcn I l'.,ct • therefore ttr.1ount to t. stntutory 3_:rounas, for ch['.J_\cnging I Jdhe election, T-n'}o.t hej,_"e the ! ! petitioner did not do, is tb list his intended witnesses, to 1 • - prove the snr,1e, With respc r¼ in the 6ir0ur.1stnnces, such 1:'i.st ,:;,n is not essential; consider:·, ~ig the battles to be fought~ nnd . . if wo.rfij to be won, and tbG ;::'eat'! hot unjustif:Ledj in my viei1j that disclosure of witnessu.;, may expose them to possible interference, and undue in:C:.:..1ence. · It shall therefore fo.11, ! on the petitioner, to stricJ,ly prove the allegations, a. lego.l l , c~oss to be carried by the i)etitioner, - across thnt is not without considerable legal Height. I sho.11 not therefore • t ... 23 .. fault sub-pn1,,o. 6(c) of the petition. Ls earlier pointed out, the respondents gratuitously handed rae c. blank cheque, f'.nd _invited me,. to draw it, interms tbo.t tbe whole pet-.it;ion wo..s V::'.gue, as to be· likely and that it e □ bnrrnsed the respondents, nnd that therefore, for reason thereof, it · be wholly struc~.:out. I wo.s, with due r0s~1ect, without enthus:.nsn to t~ccept the unconditj_onnl invitc..tion, for such ' '' over-1 oo.o::.ng, 001.mfounded m:i expecto.t ions,· of tbo responclents, for tbouc·:·, ';;hey wanted a. decJ;h sentence, passed. on the whole petition, ,)nly pnro. 6(c) of -:::he Petition, was picked out for attack, bu:c huve me, like a. v-:'..llage tyrant, i;rample alohg striking otlt every purn.grnph ;,.n the Petition. However out_ of purposeful c::i.11 for duty, hith c·onspicuous, untainted i ,j.'reedorn fror,1 pnrtia.lity, a.nc7.f unswn:yed by pnrtiso.n sJmpathy, i nor prejuc!ice, o:nd r.mv~d by /:mly one kind. of influence, to· i . do wha.t is just, I thorough·ty examined the petition, and ' , illurnina ted, 6(e) and {i) Sub-pc.ru ( e), nvei-•s t~fa.t some of the bouse.s vsed, o.s . / . I r1· . . pollinc centres, were bouni}s of well know CCM r:1e1;1bers. _, 1 Concededly this allegutio:-::f does not amount to a. sto.tutory I ground~ for_ challenging t~f elections, it is lacking in specificity, as to which s,)lch polling stations/cum-houses j were, and who 2.were the wet::.. known CCM members, and if true, • ! so what, tow the petitior:ic:;I was affected o.nd. wllD.t what I reliefs, the petitioner e:x•;,0ct tberefrorn, are f'.11 left to speculation. J:..hd ri10re iiTt:• trtantly, is the f net tho.t, t:1e respo1iden~s o.re placed in c, difficult position, of putting up n defence, a.gQinst the same •. 24 J::Gxt comes, para 6 ( i), that some of the· pol1ing sto.tions were not supplied with CF6, C~:'7 Porrns, for filing complaints, · and s2.tisf s.c·oion of the r~:sul tsi the polling stations in question, a.re not po.i-.·cicvJ.c..r-rised, nor is the effect of failure to supply the so.me mac.1e kno,:m, o.nd how tbe peti·cioner · who ·failed to do :Jo · wn.s off ected, Lis speculo..t:i ,re, an ~.rea t<Jhose knowledge, I ~m uo.ntii:.g~ Lnc1. bow the res:·.,c·. 1dents, may go a.bout preparing for their defence, ccm only be to.ntdlising, particulo.rly when, it is no·c even a statL:tory gro·,n::d; for challenging the election. For reasons above, para 6(e) and (i} of the Petition, are hereby st:,~uckout, fo1" serior :: vaGueness, and lack of dil'•ectiori. Froi::J the above, it is c1 ear that the Prelirdina.ry objection J:o. (1) has failed,·para 6(e) and (i) struckout, - the raection :Petition minus paras 6 ( b}, (t:) and (i), shc.11 be basked in . sun of an o:)en trial, after; all - as the American Supreme i Cour•t J-ustice Brandeis - p,.f_n-:~ea cut - 11 In a der.ioc1"'acy ........,,, ......,, ..... ~ - •. .t•--·-'-"·•··,.... ~.,;f,-_,l..:l!l sunlin:ht is the best disir,-f,3ctant. 11 ...-.,:.,,.-, r• •· "··~••...,. -.:.·-•-·• ..,, ..._ • ,·: ..._,-,~.,. ~..-,:.:,•_._._..~1,_.,.-.,.i--.._.•~~....,.,.,_,. •. _.._..,. ~ t:· •• ,- • .-• •-:.so,•,, I . De 1 ivere d t l:ns ' 10th C!. ·•,f y o f Apri'l , 19°6 ;) • ! I \ Ll~l·~ E• I r • KA.'rI'I1 I ~- ,- nate i ,1..Qth li.pril/J,' 1996 . - Coramf E,, w~. Katiti, J, I .Petittioneri )?resent and 1J,presented by Nr. Kayaga~ Advocate I who is pi1esei !- • j 1st Respondent t RepresenU,d by Hr. Kaduri .. Prinicipal State i j . Attorney liho is present. 2nd Respopdent: Present :\.1 person. -- (CORAK: CIVIL :,PPE.t\.L ::o. 44 OF 1995 · __ l)Q_~~ B!~'l',{EEN r:r'y,.._ . 9.,.._x:_.v-X"'\' : ~ \a_~ ~- TJ\NGAN:r.'1. lQ\ MO'l'Of<S LIMITED •••••• ~ ••••• 11.PPELIAN'l' r· . ·- {( ' ..•. .._S"-·· L--.. •. } AND T.Ri\NSCONTINEN'l'AL JTOR\/J\RDER LIMITED •• ~ .REsi:JQNDE;NT l:...a..J , _ (r0 (Appeal from the decision of the V\~• v:--.JL t✓ A- High Court of To.nzonio. ~t Dar es Sc1.ln.ur11) _ (M,:-.pie;.:1.n~.) d..:tted the 26th dny of July, 1995 in Civil Cose Noa 126 of 1986 TlHJ.:T~'.G OF '::'li"B COURT ~DHANI 1 J .,\.: The oppellnnt compcu1y iB tho Tangnnyik.:i Motors Ltd. 6.nd the rGspondent cornp.:iny i.s the: 'l'ra.nscontincnto.l Forwordera Ltd. When !. ·. · · the ::i.pperu. c.::vn€: up for hearin~ the respondent compnny rni.sod n. prcliminnry objoction that the app<!al is incompetent as no le.:i:!o wn~ asked for ond Biven prior to its filing. _On bcruil.f of the respondent company wG.s Hr. Kinguji, learned ociv.ocate, y1h.o cited three of Ol+r previous deciGio.oe on the rcquiromcr of loavo to a.ppcal against orders of the High Gour-~. On the othor hru1d Mr. Mu..jithiu, l,;w.rrwd counsel for the uppcllunt company, rociGted tile pn.ili111i~lll.ry oli.ioction diotingui0hing thin appco.l from tlw ·thr~o d.ted uu··1ioritics. ,. f • • • / c:. 2 It i.s necessary to preface this rulini; wit;1 a bri!i(; ~~()0~\\ ~ wha.t happened in order to appreciate the arguments for ~.t e.,a.1..ll::.t the prcli.minai.·y objectiono The appellant company filed a plair,t in tho High Court at Dar es Salc::..am clc!.iillin3 to be the holder of the Offer of ~ right •f occltpa.ncy of Plot 61~:44 at Kurasini, Dar es Salaam. It was !urther claimed that the respondent company committed. trespa.sa on the said plot. So, the appellant company sought injunction re:f:raining/ preventing the reapondent company from trespassing and for~ dccl.ArAtor order that the s.:i.id premises belong to tho uppellant company. Tho :tcspondent cornpany 1 _ us UGuali filc.:d a written stuteJ?1ont of defence to which the a_ppE;llant company filt::ld a reply. After r:i.:m-:1 udjourrun€!nts the suit wus by consent :t'ixed for hearing on August 17, 1990. On thut elate the app<!llunt comr1any was not duly rc:prcsontllc1 so the:: High Cotu·t (MAC/ANJA 1 J.) dbmfos;,d the suit with costs to bo born by the uppellant comp,:1.ny.. 'l'hat Has on August 28 1 1990, very close to four yea.rs since the suit was filed. A. notice of appe::al by the appcllo.nt company ag.1inst th.::it dic;rnissal \-ID.S filed on /\uGust 31, 1990 but it was struck out on· June 2·, 199'1-., ~o, on AU[su,st 30, 1994 ill!·. applic.:ition for c:xcoution of tr'ie High Cotu't decrt::e wns filed under 0.,21 R.33(1) by the rcspo11cknt con,pc:ny. 'rhnt was four yoo.rs o.fter tho decision o! dis- misuini; the .suit. Th,:1.t applico..tion for tho execution of tha dccroo 1.:a.s &rnntt::d by H,\PIGANO, J. on 5th Scptemb8r 9 i99-1~. The appellrn,t co10po.ny was nggr;i.evcd by i-: '.! gl'nnt ·of execution of th1:: dccr::c ,:.:.:. · ,,,..,, ~ ,,.r1 fr,r "· :-:-:-view of that grant. 'l'he reason wc.s th.:lt thtl o.pplication for exe<.:u~ion ,.,,a.-;; made mor~ then a Yr.!::U- •... /3 3 aftc.:r the dutc of tlio dec1'ce ( fou.r y8ru·s to be precise) und thnt 0.21 n.20(1)(u) o. notice ·:o show co.use as to w'hy the decree 6hould not bo o:<:ocutc:Jd wo.s required to be issued to the appclln.nt company but th.:1t had not b<::en <lc1nc .. So, MAPIGAN0 1 J. dischru-g~d the ordqr of oxecution. A notice to show co.use wo.s issued to tho ap:pcllant com_pru1y m1d on July 26, 1995 l'-'u\PIGAN0 1 J. mudc the followi.ni:; ru.ling: "I entirely agree with tht: submissiona mo.de:: by Mr. Kinguji. The application for E:JX8cution of the decree granted to the Applico..nt/D.;;fendo.nt it, gro.ntcd. 11 It is this 'Order' of July 26, 1995 by MAPIGANO, J O th.o.t is the subj8ct of this o.ppenl. Ao nlri::i!.dy said, Mr. Kinguji me.de a. pr-climin.::i.ry objection aaying that there is no nppcal as of riP.;ht from mi order of the High Court. The learned D.dvocute argued. that the or_der in dispute docs not fnll under po.r0gr~ph.s (u) or (b) of oubsection (1) of section 5 of the J\.ppellate Jurisdiction Act, ·1979 • . Ho pointed out that the order falls under paragraph Cc) of eubsect ion ( 1) of aection 5. Hr. Kinguji referred ua to 1'he RcgiGtrar of B':.ildings. v. (' . . ..,crv:i.ccs 1 Civil Appeal No~ 19 of 1988 (unreported); B.P. Tanzania Ltd. Y.t El:ir;.1. him Salum Ebrahim y';_\ Tahfif Min:i Super _Madrnt; Civil Reference No. 4 of 1992 (unrr!_ported) wh:_ch waG followed in The National Ene,inecring Co. Ltd. ~~liudi_ Mathe.- Ne9rc, Civil A:pveal Noa 18 of 1993 (unreported) • . . . . /4 1.n .all thn:~ ahove cited decisions, we held that ordees by the liigh Court fall tmder Section 5 ( 1) ( c) and that they need leave to a·ppeal. Mr. Majithia, on the other hand, submitted that no leave i.s requir·e:d fo.c Lhi::; appeal. 'l'he learned advocate pointed out that all. three uut.horiti<.;s relied upon by M:r:. Ki.nguji. dual with appeals from ord(.:1·s of the: High Court. Mr •. Majithia .submitted further that the present appeal is not from an order of the.High Court but from a decre.::: of the High Court. Mr. M;:1jithia pointed out that the /\.ppcllatc Jurir;di,;tion Act, ·1 1)?() <.loco not define a decreo. So, he a.r1.5ued 1 we huv~ to resort l:o t.hc: Civil l·'roc<.;dun:: Code, 1966 (C.P.C.). He s.:i.id that U1e:: term ducrce is d~fin0<.l ins. 3 of the C.P.C. and th~t.iL inclv~~e the: t'<.;jcction of a plc!int 1::t11.<l the determination of ru1y question within :35. 38 £t11.d 89 of tlw C.P.C. Mr. Majithio. pointed out further th:,1t G. 38 of the C.l'.C. deals with execution of d8crct:G nnd th,:1t is what \-JD.G bu fore MAPIG/\NO I J. So, the learned a.dvocat1:: ar5ucd, v1h.:1t 1·1/\PlGANO, J. gave ,tas by thnt def.ini t ion o. decree irr,,Gpcc ti ve of 1-1hat it ho.s been titled. Mr. Maji.Ll1L1 clr<3w our attention to tlulla: Civil Procedure Code, .:1..:..~~!• tl(.:,:ding· w:i.th the definition of decree in G. 2 of the Indinn t'.ivil l'roc0t11u·(: Cod,~ ...,,l)ich is in pnri ~-l,:ri_<::: witlt G. :; of thu C.P.C. Citing -~~cnl:Clrics: 'rhc Code o.f Civil Proccduru by Chitaluy :>r1cl nno 6Lh l~d. C-19'.;'/), lhe lca.rncd o.4ivocatc :.rnbmittut.l U1,1l: .. ·thcru ,.\I'c.: ~·iv0 cl:\GSC:G of ciccrl:::cs onu of which i:s tll:1.t from the dct(:l'nJin3.l ion or (]UE:GtionG undur s~. 48 und 1 1~4 ( in wari materio. with ss. 38 o.nd ,'39 of the C.l',C.). . ... /5 ~- 5 Civ:i.1 llpp~nl::; lo thiG Court- nre govurned b:y section 5 of the: AppulL)tn ,Jw·:i.5dict:i.on J\ct, 1979. Subs<:::ction ( 1) of that .s8ction 1 11url icul.-i.rly pt1ro.e;rr.rphs (o.) · a.ncl C-c), 11rE: rolevont here_. It is provided GS followG:- "5 - (1) In civil proceedings, except where ;:my oth0r written law.for the time being in force provides otherwis~, ·on npp~o.l :sh'"\ll lie to the Court of /\ppc.:i.l - ;.=://.· (.:i.) ,.i.c;ain.0t every clecruu, i11clucli..r1c nn ex pc.rte or prelimin.:i.ry dccroe mo.de by the High Court in .'.\ suit unde:1· the Civil P1·0- ceJurc Code, 1966 in the cxcrci.au. of it::; origin.:i.l jw~i1.,diction; (b) (c) \·1il:h the leave of the llir;h Court or of the Court of /\ppc::al ac;tiin::.;t every other decree, order, judge- ment, d~cision or finding of the High Court.n P1:1.ragntph ( b) 1,Jlii.ch ha.s not been reproduced emu,1c,1·aLc.-; nine: orclcr·B of tltt: Hi~h Coud; mad8 i..r1 it:.s or-ig:i.nal ju.. r·:i.:.;c.lici.:ion 1-:hich 1n·,., ,q,p1:l:l1d,l1, ,_u;; or 1·:i.ghl:. - It :i.:~ n<:>t di.:;plll.L:;I L\1;.. d. ~-!": ;:,r.Jer oI MAl'.l(.;Al'l0 1 J • 1 lhL: s1,ll;icct 111uL\.er of Llti::.i :,pp,::a'J, i,; r,ut ·,:111•: of tli•·. onlc:1·::.-; liGtec.l in J)tu·ai:;;r.:i.ph (b)o tlo,1 1 Lll1: llu·L:u d1~ciGionr; of l.l1io Courl \-1lli,:;•t; l!:;v10 ·\J,..,,_,i; cit;.-d tu u~ by Mr. l\i;1i:_;uji dual \-lith onl~x·o c,f 1..lw lli1.5b Ct,urt ·;mcl we h[.!v L·,l.l:i.d llwt orc.lt:r:·i ar.:: tiuuj,-)ct to par,\[Et·vph ( c.:) c1 lH)ti:d ah,v0 ;,nd th;_, ·i11 orclur to ctpp,.:r\l. a1r,;iinst Ll10rn .lt::,'..\V'-' i:;; t·c.:qui1·0,.l. • • • • I t: \I 6 So, Uw 11.: 6 1:J.l position is that any unkr of the: ll::.gh (;ourt· which :LG not on(; of the nine orders listed in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of oc:ction (;,) of tllf: /\ppdlate Jurisdi_ction Act, 19?9,. fails unclcr pu.raisruph (c) of lhnt ct:cti5:in and is only app,:;ll1:1ble:; wil:1, l,~D.VE: or thu High Court or of this Court. Mr. Mujithia did not ch.:,.11<::nge that but .submitted Uwt some: cxprl.'Goionr.;, ·though .:u·e: tE:rmed order8 1 un.: by llr~fit1i.Li1.,1: rk,;rc~:.s ~u1.d :~c, do no L fall unJ1:::r vuragr·cJ.ph ( c) but unclc::c pa1·il1;r·:, ph ( ,.,_) nnd, LliE:rv•· for(;, do not ne.::d ll.:,W8 to o.ppol1l. t, <luc1·,,.,~ ir.; d . . . fined in s. 3 of th,} c. \-' .c. ,;.:.;: ··•t.li" l.onnal 1..:xprc.sGion uf :1:1 r1cljudic:.1l.:to11 vd1iclt, .so far at; rcgru·<.1:;; t,he; court L!Xpr,:,;:.::t,ing it 1 conclu.siv<..:ly t.le: l:crrnino..:::; . ,. the rights UJ. ·~a-.: pa:..•t i,1G ,,i·i:h re:gacd to ,ill 01:· o..ny of the matt(;t'e:; in cont:.c·o-. v,)r:::,y in the snit nnd may b0 eitb<:.:r prulirn.inax·y or final. It :,;hall U(, t.l0r~1nl.'Ll to include tho rej0ction of .:i. pl;:tinL and th0 dGterrninution of any qUl:!Gtion Hi.thin ::iuctior1 )2, or .section 8'), 11 Mulln ,tt p.:1g1..: 3 ck:n.lin1~ witli cs. It? on cx,;cution pn>c•~i~ding:s · (i11 1>,,ri mat,,ria with c. 3:,3 of C.P.C.) Gays: 11 1\n l.'Y.L;cution 1iroce:edin~, tltougll n 11rocc..::din(!; in ..:i. suit, is not o rn.1it. 'l'hv co1nb:i.ne:d e:t'foct of G0c. 2 (2) c.Uld s0c. /.f? is thn.t un orde:r p;:1::;si::d in uxecution procuodings will be t;crnL.:unount to t:1 df1cr0c ••• 11 '['hr, lu.trn.:;:d 11uthor i;o0s further to give: thr-c.:c~ conditions: one. so far ::u; rugnrd:.:; tiw Court l,lCl[H3inc; it 1 it concluGivoly dctonnin0s ~ ... /7 th,, -proCL:~ding:::; rw1.1lw l:o Uw execution c,.i' tbc <lccn,u. Civil Proci::<lurt.:: :r:·ec1)g_n izes five clusGe:G of clccn::(::s incl udin;; c. 1il!tennin.:1l:ion or n qn.::st:ion l..fithin s. 1+? or .s. 14 1f i..n p:·,ri ·1:iD.tcr:i.n .:,.pp1:.:.:\l::; f1·om o:r:d01·::; c,f tho Hi[ih Court th<;ll l.l10y cu·c: d.iG linr;:uishnblc g:,v,: e.nd which i:.:; th1..: su':)juct mD.ttC':!r of this o:ppuol i.:1, \Jy defin:i. Lic,n cuid th,.:: c0111bir1cd operation of :::;ectionu 3 :J.nd 38 of C.f'.C., o. dec1·c1.: f.:-illG ur,<l\.,r pm·~ic;r-uplL (1:1) or pc.ragrupll (c) of se:ction '.;i (1) of tl1c r;ccl:ior, '.,; (1)(n) provider; th0.l .:u1 r.i.ppe.:.1. :~h:111 li,·: ,:1:; of right .... /8 ,, \) tk fini t ion llClvG th~ deer ct: in dispute b0long. We :tn: th;:u1kful for the enlightening resC:nrch tho.t Mr. Ma:jithi0 tiid o.ftG:r WU otijourncd to give coun.sel time to probe into this 111att0r the HcGist.r:1r of 'l'itlcs under Cnp.s. 113 and 3}if. Ln.stly 1 decree-$ in tl~e cxcrcis0 of the nppellnte jurisdiction of the l!{gh Court. !"or ll10 cnsillL:GG of ref0rcncc w0 fuc:l thnt \~1; h:.wc.: to reproduce ng,::tin p.:tragro.ph b.) of subsection (1) of section 5 of Ua, /.qip<.;llo.te Juri:.::diction /\ct, 1979. lt i.s proviclL:d t.lv.1!-. on 0µpc-o.l sliltl 1 l i<: to tl1,) Court of Appt:Cll - 11 ( n) o.L;ctinst evcry decree, iucluuinc ex })ti.rte or pre:liminn.ry decree: m..-:ldc by the High Court in a t,uit un,:lt::r l:hc Civil I·'roc1c:dur-(: Codu, 1966 in the ex&rciae of its ,n·i.,::;in.::il juriscliction.·• 1 It ,~ppe.:u·:: t,·, UG tli::i.t for D cic:crec: l(:, COin(: uncl,.:r 11::.n!gro.r,h ( a) it mur1t rn1.:,:t t.l11't:L: ,_:,.,nditic,ns: One:, it mu.st h,:: in.1<.!,_. .iin :t cuit·'• .... /9 • 9 it muat be 11 il1 •"the exorcise of the originil jurisdiction1l of' tl\a High Court. Now, was the decree in question made in o. ouit? Mull~ nt , . 8 snys: 11 An execution p:cooeeding 1 though a proceeding in o. suit, io not n oui t 11 • ( emphllSis supplied) Yet, Chito.lcy nnrl Ro.-2, ut n., 1.39 l).l:'OI)OUlld as follow 13: 11 Thu determin.:ition of any question within s. L17 or 6~ 144 is expressly in.eluded in the definition 11 decree 11 tho~h such cl~termination ia neither made in c1 suit, nor ia dr.uwn up in the form of a. decrea. 11 (emphasiv .supplied). Aa .uready .so.id .s. Lf7 referrod to o.bovo, i..s in pru:-i =t~U). o,d.th our e. )8: c.x.chution p.roc,:odings. From the: two treatices we have no doubt in our mind.:; th.'.lt the: decree in question wa3 not obto.ined in a suit. As GU.ch it doca not liloet the: first condition. We mo.y soy in pD..G.sing th::i.t tho other two conditions o.ppea.r to be s~tiofied. Howevor, aa all threo conditions ,1uve to bo met then the decree in question dcos not fall under po.rngro.ph (c1) but is unci of 0 every othor decreo-' of po.ro.gro.ph (c) o.nd therefore requires leave to appeal. In o. nutshell, wh.:i.t HAPIGANO, J. go.va on 26th July 1 1995 Wa.13 a docrco beco.uso of the joint opcrutio~ of soction 3 ,:ind 38 of tho •••• /10 •••I , •• ._ .. _,,, ,,..,_.,,_,• 11•,:11,. o,.,,,_, ···---········ . . . 10 C.P.C. _However, o.s Cl..tl execution proceeding us not o. suit 0 co• the decree :is not 11 overy de~:..-ee 11 of pa.ro.grqph (o.) but 11 cvcry other docrco 11 of paro.grnph ( c) ru1d, o.s much, leo.vo to o.ppo.'.l.l ia 1."eq_uired• Tho.-l,J.r"limino.ry objection is oJ.lowod with costD, In th111 evont tho- a :P.P e a.l is : .a t.;.'u.clf... .out- u.nd,w.- • Rul ~ -82 bo-c.::i.u..:i o .:m e ~ at e:P in . : .., ·.._ -·-···· tho -PJ;-ooo-od.ing.s ruu; ·not been taken. It is so oi·dorcd. D:\'fli.'D 1at D1\.R ES S..\llu\M thia 30th dr:..y of Hey 9- t\, ._·; '\996. ;\. s. L. ru~J-v\.D!-L\NI ~ C E OF AFPE/\..L N. S. HHZAV/\S JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. z. LUBUVA ~~ OF APPEAL I C:81;* ·•.-~·,· thut this is a true copy of the od.e:iJlnl. ( M.S. DEPurY RffiISTRAR