19980602 TZHC Dar es Salaam

·[ IN T}IE HIGH COU,;T OF TANZANJ:A (DAR .~S SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) I AT DAR ES SALAAM _________ -- CIVIL CASE N0.22 OF 1998 .._, TANtANIA AUTQl,~0BILES MA.i•;U.fACTU.i:HNG ) • o • ., 0 o • PLAINTIFF C0MPMH LD-'iI'rED ) Versus SMIOTA LIMITED ~ 0 O ♦ 0 • o o O • 0 0 0 .0 o C O O O O• 0 0 o o 0 ;JEFENDAN"r R UL I NG ~--- CHIP.~TA 1 J ::-•--.. This is a ruling on an oral application made by Mr. Msemwa, learned counsel for the defendant company, for ey+-,,msion of time in which to file a written statement of defenceo 'The record reveals that the plaintiff, M/S Tanzania Automobiles Manufacturing Company•Limited, defendant company, M/S Samota Limited, r \. on 26th January, 1998. The defendant was duly served with a summons on 5th March, 1998. 'rhat summons required the defend::mt to appear before the court on \vednesday, '11th March, 1998. The defendant,, ,.,......- however, did: nor appear not did he file a written statement of defence. It was not until on 20th of May, 1998; wh&n· the case came up for mention for necessary orders that the defendant, for the first time, entered an appearance through his advocate, Mr. Hsemwa. Even by that date no written statement of defence had been filedi Learned counsel for.the defendant prayed for extension of time on the following :grounds; (a) that he was· instructed by a relative of the defendant s· directors only .the previous day; (b) that the 1 defendant'.s director(s) had to go abroad on some urgent business after being served wfth tlre summor:fs in this case; (c) that the sum involved was colossal; .and (d) that the defendants. had made some payments to the plaintiff •. 2 Ivlr 0 Mhango, learned counsel for the plaintiff, resisted the applicationo In his submission, the applicat_ion had been brought much too late and that no sufficient reason had been given for not filing a written statement of defence in time .. Order VII;I:, rul8 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where a summons has been issued requiring a defendant to appear, the defendant may, and if so· required by the court, shall, at or before t_he firs"t hearing or within such time as the court may perl!}i t, present to the court a written statement of defenceo Rule 14(1) of that same Order provides that where any party has been required to file a defence and fails to do so within the time granted by the court, the court may enter judgment against him or make such other order in the matter as it thinks fit. Those provisions· give adequate hotice to defendants as to the consequences of inaction, negligence or indifference in such caseso This court would be abdicating its duty if it were to allow parties to conduct their cases according to their vagarieso So, if a party exhibits serious inaction, negligence, or an attitude of conplacency or indifference, he must not be permitted to go away with ito He must be subjected to sanctions as provided by the law - unless, of course, he shows good causeo In the instant case, the defer1dant was served some 12 days before the date he was required to appear or file a written statement of defence, and the defendant has offices in Dar es Salaam. In my view, the defendant had ample time to appear or file a defenceo If the defendant was serious about the matter, he could have instructed an advocate to appear before going abroad. It is now more than 2¼ months since the defendant was served, but to this day no written statement of defence has. been filed. The only reason for the delay is said to be, that the defendant'Q s directorC-s) had to go abroad shortly after being served with the summonso In my view, that is not a sufficient reason at all. 3 It has also been submitted that the court should give some indulgence to the defendant because, it is said, the sum claimed is colossal. To my mind, that is hardly releva..'1t. If anything, that fact alone was th2 better reason for the defer··•nnt to act diligently and swiftly in the matter. Also irrelevant is the submission that the defendant has made some payments to the plaintiffo For the foregoing reasons,; I am of the settled view that the defendant has shown no sufficient cause for failing to q.ppear or file a written statement of defence in all that timeo On the contrary, the defendant has been guilty of inexcusable inaction and indifference. Accordingly, the applicati9n for extension of time in which to file a written statement of defence is hereby refusedo The plaintiff is at liberty to file an appropriate application under the provisions .•· of the Civil Procedure Codeo It is so ruled. I 1/,I, , ;• • I • j f i° I /<1 · \.., ___>· B. D. GHIP,~TA JUDGE - 2/6/98: Coram: M?hote, DR-HC Mr. Mhango: for the Plaintj.ff Mr o Msemwa: for the Defendan-t CC: Lazarous Ruling delivered in Chambers on the 2nd June, 1998 in the pr~sence of Mr. ~mango learned counsel for the Plaintiff and ~lro Msemwa Learned counsel for the Defend?Jlto /.; __. I ,i1;;~::,, /; / (Sgd)~ F. S. MSHO'i'E DISTRICT REGISTRAR 2/6/1998