20031120 TZCA Zanzibar
The notice of appeal was defective because it was not endorsed by the Registrar of the High Court as specifically required by the rules and Form D; endorsement by any other person is not permitted and renders the appeal incompetent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20031120 TZCA Zanzibar
- Parties
- Appellant: Tanzania Revenue Authority; Respondent: Al Naeem Enterprises Ltd.
- Court
- TZCA
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- appeal struck out as incompetent
- Legal Topics
- Notice of Appeal, Endorsement by Registrar, Competence of Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tanzania Revenue Authority
Appellant
Al Naeem Enterprises Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal must be endorsed by the Registrar of the High Court to be competent
- 2 Whether endorsement by any other official renders the appeal incompetent
Ratio Decidendi
The notice of appeal was defective because it was not endorsed by the Registrar of the High Court as specifically required by the rules and Form D; endorsement by any other person is not permitted and renders the appeal incompetent.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out as incompetent
Orders
- Notice of appeal struck out under Rule 82 with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
... -·~-1,i .: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ZANZIBAR (CORAM: RAMADHANI, J. A.; LUBUVA, J. A.; And MUNUO, J. A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2002 BITWEEN TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY APPELLANT AND AL NAEEM ENTERPRISES LTD. ... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court for Zanzibar at Zanzibar) (Mshibe, J.) dated the 1st day of October, 2001 in Misc. Civil Cause No. 51 of 1999 RULING RAMADHANI, J. A.: Mr. Hamidu Mbwezeleni and Mr. Mnkonje learned advocates for the respondent, raised a preliminary objec~ion containing four grounds. However, they conceded that the third ground was not applicable as the appeal did not require certificate of point of law. So, they dropped it. The first ground of preliminary objection was that both the notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal were not endorsed by the desigr;ated ·officials. It was pointed out that both the notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal were· endorsed for the Registrar. Mr. Mbwezeleni cited William Loitiame v. Asheri Naftali, Civil Appeal No. 62 of _)999 (CAT) and also Jackson Reuben Maro v. Hubert Sebastian, Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2001 (both unreported). Mr. Aggrey Teemba, learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that the notice of appeal was lodged in the registry of the High Court of 2 Zanzibar and went on to argue that the notice does not have to be endorsed by the Registrar. Mr. Teemba relied on Rule 15. As for the two authorities cited, the learned advocate submitted that they were decided without taking into account Rule 15 and that the Court only considered Rule 76 which requires a notice of appeal to be substantially in the Form D. Rule 15 provides as follows: Whenever any document is lodged in the Registry or in the sub-registry or in the registry of the High Court under or in accordance with these Rules, the Registrar or the deputy registrar or the Registrar of the High Court, as the case may be, shall forthwith cause it to be endorsed, showing the date and time when it was lodged. We agree with Mr. Teemba that the Rule requires· the Registrar or the Registrar of the High Court presented with a decument -to "cause it to be - - . lodged". We agree again that the clause "cause it to be lodged" does not mean that the document has to be lodged by the Registrar himself or herself. It is our considered opinion that Rule 15 is a general rule for lodging_ any document. However,- . as for the_ lodging of a notice of appeal, there is a specific rule, that is, Rule 76. Sub-rule (1) provides as follows: Any person who desires to appeal to the Court shall lodge a written notice in duplicate with the Registrar of the High Court. The Rule provides a specific requirement of lodging a notice with the Registrar of the High Court. A document is said to have been lodged when it has been paid for and endor·sed. The endorsement, from the clear words of this sub-rule, has to be done by the Registrar of the High Court, which expression, per Rule 2 (1), includes, "a district and a deputy registrar of that court". There ·is no room for any one else to sign. . -, 3 But there is also sub-rule (6) which requires a notice of appeal to be "substantially in the Form D in the First Schedule". Now, Form D has a place for the signature of the Registrar, and not for anybody. As Mr. Mbwezeleni submitted, this Court has said in William Loitiame that in Form D "there is absolutely no room for delegation". That was reiterated in Jackson Reuben Maro. In both of those appeals the notices of appeal were received and signed on behalf of the Registrar. This Court said in Maro: The notice was patently defective for having been received by a person who had no competence to do so, and this rendered the appeal incompetent We cannot do otherwise here. After making such a determination, we do not think that there is any need_ to go into the other two grounds. We strike out the notice of appeal under Rule 82 with costs. DATED at ZANZIBAR this 20 th day of November, 2003. A. S. L. RAMADHANI JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. Z. LUBUVA JUSTICE OF APPEAL E. N. MUNUO JUSTICE OF APPEAL ~ 1. . - - 4 i I certfy that this is a true copy of the original. ·-----.:...:.~ (F.L.K. WAMBALI) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ~-- :··_.-. c_- ~ - ··-··, ... :.:'-"-. ,• :·.,,.__ - . - . c. ·: .. ...:=· ~ ·-· -- - ....