19880603 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN T;IE EIGH COURI1 OF T.t,lJZANIA AT D.iill. ES SLUJVIM CIVJL Cl~SE NOo 37 OF 19GQ ' ·' . T;Jmi:J-.TY:IKil TEKTILE IEDUS'i"'RIES. o O o • • O O • o O O o o O C O C O O O O O O O 6 I 11.PPELLArlT t, versus "' Tll.lifGANYIKA TEXTILE HOilIGmS HJVESTMEJJT COMPANY LIHITED ••••• ., .................. ". ~ •••• -.RESPONDEi-JT llULING Dl!fILTI_, J e Tl~is is an applic~tion under Orclor 35 rule 2 of the; Civil Procedure Code for loave to appcc:,r ancl defend the nui t., The applicr,tion is supported by an affidavit of the Chaiman of the Board of Directors of the Defendant CompDJ:W• The applica.1ts do not clisputo tho issuing of tho cheques and they are prep,1.red .. to pay tho nonoy. Their dispute is in the node of p(Wi:ient 1111.d. how it should be off eotod.. The applicants ·confond that there was an agreement bctl-reen the parties c:;s -~o how payr:ient should 1)e made and t~1.at the respo11dent fo,iled to honour this a..g.romont. Mr. Kesaria, lear-i1od counsel for the respondent said in reply that if ever there was nny a.;rocraent lJetwcen tl:e partios$1 it was to the effect that the cheques should bo pe.id,. M.r. Kosa.ria also sulm tted ·t:'J.at t:.10 nfficlavi t of t.b.e deponant So,idi. So:r"u is bad in le,w because it docs not talk of personal knowledee but insto&i it talks of knowledg·e and belief without clisolosinc; the sou.roe of such lmoulod.ee n.nd 1)cliofo ;10 referred tho court to tho case of . 1- Bom]Ay Flower Mil]:, Vo'I',rI.Patol (1962) E.A, D43. :r.1.r. Kesario, also referred. to Orc..1e.r 21 rule 3 n.nc1 sul:ui tted tlmt thor.1,faii,A'Jil/:{ruhliea:i:aia;~~-.the clcfonde.nt that tllero was consicleratiol'l.. IIe submitted further t:10..t what th.a c.pplicant wanted uns r:iodo of pr1,ynent, but that no application for instak1011t ct:.n bo ontortainod in a SUl:n-uy suit. IIc 1•of'orred the court to the case of I1..1.Ssa.11nli Ja:ffer P,00.rani y. L.Ho;m 1 TLll 467 in support of this proposition. rrir. Kcsaria nlso stn.-ted tl:at every oheq:ue no..s n.n n.{;.rcoracnt 1)oi;wc011 the clrr~11er end -tho payee, 6.rul in support of that he referred the court to the_c2.,scs ofLuhurn.e v Coffee Ma.rketipe Boc.r<l (19JO) E.,A,.155 a.nd Schwartz v. Gill and Co.Ltd(l972) E,A,.l. rnr Keso.ria conolu.dod his sul:li:lission that in caso tho oourt docs not aerec with his areuncnt then appliccmt should deposit :full anou.nt into ,o·ourt in accordance with Orclor 35 rule 3( 2) because the applicant rulni ts consiclcra- -l;ion, which a.clnission attracts jud[;TJent for plc..intiff,. In reply, Mr. Rt.tt[l.sho1J,Yn contended thc..t the fa.cts in tho c.ffic1avi t rennin vnlic1. because no countcr-o.fficlu.vit wa.s filod to contrwiiot the S°'1."J.o. Ile also subrai ttcd that tho clfidnvi t 1ms in order boco.uso tho source of kn.owl ocl&ci and boli of of' tho ohD..irnc..n wn$ ros ad on his boil1o choinmn. Ilo oonciuded by saying tho.t this court is anti tlod to know 1n uhct circUDStanoc§: the cheques woro issued o.nd how the n.pplicant :failed to honou:c t:'J.er.1. 2 In this applico.,tion the applicmit o.cl.ni ts thc1t there 1m.s consic1oro:'cion for the cheques issued,.. Ind.cod r-1r,. RuJa.shobya lp2.,rnod cmmsol for thci'· o.pplica.nt stn.tod in J.iis su1:nission tho.t the applicant w2.s propo.red to P2:iY- the money due on tho choquos. Hha.t wns in cl.ispute$ Mcorcling to r'.fx. Ru.tnshoqra, was tho node of p.aynont ~.-1d how it should lbc effected. I [l{:,TOO with Mr. Kosaria for the respondent tJ.mt once consiclcration is a.elm ttcd then there cc1..nnot 1)o ru:ry ar13W:1011t over the pt1yt1.ent of dishonoured cheques• In this case consideration is Mni ttec1 and I cn:n,.,.ot see c'.111Jr facts disclosed by the n.f'ficlavi t which o.ro svi'ficient to support the application.. Tho only fMt which would be sufficient -'i;o support this cpplication is lack of consiclora.tio11.t This suit is based. 011 1Jills of exchange D..11.d in oocorclance with section 30 of the Bill of Ex:cl1<.'lJlGO Ordinance Cnp 215, thoro is a presur:1ption of value civen for the bills+ In this 02.se w.luc is adr.ii ttod nncl there is no need to look nt section 30 for help.,. Also sectfon 100 of the EvirJ.ence ii.ct is ·rolo'Vt',nt here in t}w.t npn.rt fror:1 the cheques there is no other docur.1ent pleaded or annax:~d. to tho pleadings. Thore caimot therefore bo Given any otl:J.er evidence in proof of the terns of contru,Qt between the fu•o,wor and. tho pcyoe, its rightly pointed out by Mr., Koso..ria., each cheque represents o, controot lJctwcon tho parties.. In a.ccordance wi·lih the holclincr in the case of Ibssanali Jn.f')£j'eorCl..11i v L.Ilorn cited supra,$ an a.ppliontion for leave to pcy the clecrotnl DDOUl1t by instru.nent cannot be entortn.inod in v..n application for' leave to n.ppea.r c.,rnl clef end suit. WhL,t the c..p:)lication in this oc;sc seons to be is ru1 n.pplicntion to pay by insfa,lr.10nts. It cannot succeed for tho ron..sons given above. It is therefore disnisscd with costs. Lenve to n.ppen.r and dofond sui·t io refused. \ Courts :-:_ -L~~r~ - Ruli.11e delivered in presence of l)Q.rties,. JUDGE 3/6/1900.