NA TZCA Dar es Salaam 2

... ! /. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·----- -- ·---·-·· -· ---···•. --- IJ-J THE COUR~.• OF APPEAL C::' '.'·;,'JZA!1:C.:.. AT ryAk ES SA[~~M (CORAM: T"ll7.,t\tlI/\ \IN:[FClRM & CT.,OTHING CORP 0:.1R1\'l'}:(JH, .• • (~~~:~t Cll/lPJXS MOSES •• RESP'lf/nE'.:•l'~< \.' ,·,.( r:;i •::~:.# ~·~ <·•:•. ~; r• · . J. :: w:1; .. ·· ... .. '-.!•J time :::-om thl: ·,~··..'.' ... :J c--:· Appeal of rron7.~:H:·,.· .. ~~·~: (Om(:El_..~~.!!,) rlaterl the 27th ,foy of Attgu1;t, '1993 in R UL I N G LUBUVA, J.A.: ' I Before c1 ~ingle jurlge of this Court (Omar, J .• Ao) the -':lpplicant, T;inzania Uniform aP.-1 Clothing Corpor;,Uon hn.-1 th<" grouri.-1 thot the appeal was filer! out of time. That was Court of ~preal Civil hpplic~tion No. 22 of 1990. Before us "".-1 our brother, the single jurlge, the applicnnt an.-1 tha rcspon.-ient were represcnterl by the learne~ counsel Majithia anrl R~ithath,'! respectively. nrguing the ~pplication before the siPglo ju~g~, i~ t~~~n an ~s~~ntial step in instituting the ~poenl within l sixty r1;,ys from the .-1,'!t~ of filing the notici: of nppe"Jl as \ ~ .. . /2 f '. ----------------- ------------------------- - - - 2 proviAerl unrcr rule SJ of the Coui:'.: oi.' flpi,,.,:.1 of Tanzan:i.a - ~ , 1979" ~e&ntinq on this roint K: •. i-iajithia, lP.13rtier1 c()!:,l:.>,tic>.l for the 11pp,.1.Co.t\t fll:\.{nl:.d110cl th;d: d'o'Y.\ 2.6.1990 \•J\. • '---· ~ ••'t ..... reany for coll€'c·cion. Ac.:corrlin<J to Mr. Mnj.'.t:,i,,, ,,-. r1t the counter of thn High C0urt r<c:g.:!.o'::·::r u11tJ ·1• ·19~ '-~ :_'.'., ·.' the r~spon<1~nt 1 s advocate took <leli·,rery ,_,f ::.t.. /\s o ;:~['., . ·_ t: 1 ;;•:, M.~jithia urger1, the appeal filer'! on 13.e.i9·9() was 01: 1: ,:,f time, it ~houl,., b~ st~uck out. Cn the othet h~n~, Mr. Raith~th~, learner1 counsel for the resp<>n--1ent sulitmittei:1 before the learner1 shiglc j1v,ct5e... thc1 t he b•?cnrn~ 11w,irc of· the rlocumentn on 19.6.1990 wh-?:-i he receive--1 the neputy Registrar'~ letter of 2.6.199r.. He sut>mitt<e--1 th;it ;is the time hae, starter1 running fr.om 19.6.1990 ~n,-1 the AppnAl was filed nn 13.8.1990, the appenl wos timeous. 0n the bosis of these submissions, thE'! learnerl single ju-,ge helr1 thnt unrler the provisions of rule 83 of the Court's Rules, h'!ving regr1rr1 to the time certifier1 by the Registrrir ~5 n~c:eseor.y for the prE'!para'tion of the r1ocuments requirP.~ for th<? app,~al ?.nrl the f11ct that ,1elivery of ~ocumcnts mer1ns the .' I 3 ... :..... on beh;ilf of the appl1c!'lnt w!i· ·.•,.. •1 the appeal was instituter1 out of tir.,e. in his encleavour to fl\ult the learncr.1 single ju,1ge_, ,. repe1Jtcrl his arguments before the iei,rned single jung~. Thc1{·. ::1.: tim') starten running ~rom 2~6..19-90 whQn the Registrnr wrote the letter to Mr. Raithatha lcerncn counsel for the respon~Ent who, in thr:-. vi~w of Mr. M;ijithii, nuc to laxity h:irl left the :i.•)t.tc,1r lying c'lt the High Court Registryi s counter until 19. 6.1.991.1. From the llffi~~vit an~ the oral submission before us by Mr. RGith;ithn, lP.l)rnen counsel, it is clec1r th0t the ncputy I Registrcir of the High Court wrote the letter on 2.6.1990. ,..n_ is also unnisputen that the letter Wl)S receive~ by Mr. Ri'!ithatha on 1~.6.1990. This; in our considererl vi~w, was the time when th~ lenrncrl counsel for the responAent bed;ime aware ~f ' the f;,ct thot th-:i requisite C,ocumonts for tho preparl\tion of the ;ipp8,:il were r,-::arlY for colloc tion. This is bon,c out from •• ". / 4 'I ______,_____ 4 tbc letter of 20.6.1990 by the responr'lent's ar'lvocate. In th0sc cirCUr."St<:1r.c,,s, we 'Ir.:?, with rest,ect in 1-igreement with Mr.R,:,ithc1th1', l.:-r,rr,0.r1 counsc-1 for the responr'lent that the leerne<'I single ju,iqc c;ir.nct he f;iulter'I in his hol,,ing _that the eppeal har'I been ins ti tuter1 within the time prescribe~ by the Court• s r.ulct;. lJn,lcr. rule 83 (1), the ni?Cossery ~rncnts for the institution of "lppropri.·.tR registry with!r, sixty ~ays of the r'lnte when thn notice of l'!ppeal was lor1ger1. This, ecco.r('lir19 to the prod.r.o to rule 83 ( 1) exclur'les the tima certifir-:r'I by the Re!Jlstr,.,'.'.' 0::.1 the High court as nocesseiry 'tor the preparation l'ln.., neli".,r.y of the copy of the proceer'lings to the liPPCllant. ln th1s· c11s(.), we ~re sntisfie~ that the responr'lent h~ving become ~wnr~ of the rloc~nts being renciy for collection on 19.6.1990, took th.~ essentic\l st~ps in instituting the appeAl which w;is timeously filAd on 13.8.199~. "-',:,livery" of the copy of the procee..,ings ~s set out un~cr rule "ltlhi:l'C 1 --leiivery' means }s hanr'llin4( · (sic) th~ nccumeri ts tq the l'IPOel1 9 nt And not the letter of the RegistrAr informing him that they arc rN1,.,y ••• " (emphAsis supplied) From this, it is c1ppnrent to us that two things ore p("lssibly r;onfu1:c.-1. First, there is tho issue of the timP. lnvolv<?.,., ln th,.- pr.0.pAratlon cf the r'locuments necessBry fc>r th~ instl l:1tt i.rm of the c1pr,e11l until the time when s11ch .-,cx:;um•~nts •••• /5 - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ------·-- -- . ------·-------· -- ·····---------'-- 5 which, 'Jccorrling to !."Uie 83 is exclurie-1 in computing the tim,.• ,,,Jth~.1 •_;,ich to institute the ~ppeal. Secon"1, it is lhf' quf'~; ti',n whP.th-?r lhc l:.irnc computAtion of the time inv0:·· sL,rt:, from the tim~ when l'ie responcfont is hen4erl over th•) nnc,1m•.?nU; nccess1iry for t.he institution of the appeRl or fr.om the timr when the respon,1ent hecomcs c1WRre of such rlocumcn!:.-1 b<~in,; r•)"'r1y for ccllcction. Our unrlerst?<1n,Hn~ cf rule 83 . :; th.,:, t th<.? time st;1r-ts running from the time the reSP-On.-1eJJ_t ...geccmes aware 0f the ncciJments being rcadY for coll~ction nnrl ~ot th~ time or the ➔ Ate when the lntte__r_is_writtcn b ·· -the RegJ__str'lr. ... Thi:J is so bac;,iuse, it is imprnctic;ibl~ t.c: exp0.ct some one to t.:;ke ':!Ction en a letter or .-10.-ument 0f whitrh he is not ;iwnre. ~le will now -:1eol with tht,? cornplnint on the defr,•t 0f lhc f0r th~ applic~nt harl r~iserl this issue bofora the laarnc~ single jurlge. Th~t the recorrl of appP.el wes inc0Nplete ~nrl thAt h~ w~s not serve~ with the copy of the s~pplem€ntnry the Court Mr. M11 j i thia stresse,.,. This pc int h0w1?vcr, w11s; not, with respect, r.0t1siAerefl1 11t length by the ·lcarnerl sint!Jle jur:lge. Instnr1(1, the r~sponrlcnt was tiven 11 ~hance to :!Supplement the rrcorrl with the necel'\s~ry papers. rn ~cing s0, th•? lri;e,rncr'I singl0 juAg0. irvcker'I the provisions of Rule~!(~) rf the Court• s Rule:5. ~n this, the fesponAent hc1'1 UP1rl~rb1kcn hc£<•re the 1,~11rn~<1 sl nglo jurlge to r.omply with. In OU)' 0rini<m the l~.-1rr•? ➔ ju,ioe properly exerciserl the Court• s Aiscretir•,n,:1ry !:•:er:" L·d with th<? net'.e~sl\ry ~ocuments thc1 t were mis s.in(J. C•n ., 6 • ,\t t:lw. h<.-:irlng cf this ~ppliC1'tic-n before us, Mr. M")1th1", l.··-rr·-·~ c:r1;n:-.'·\1 · f--r- th,? -'l1~rl.ici.\nt su•mitt0r1 th11t ,1:.,:;p.l.t.,, th-:- ·,r- 1 -·rt11ki1•·1, ,-till c0pi0s 0f th.:! supplement,,.ry recr.r,I wet·•~ :.•·-t -:r.rve-' -·n him (M.,,jith.l,). Thig wns rm cszr.nti;,l n•quir.•.1m,,nt; m·'•:;r r.uh· 92 (3) 0! the Cc-urt 1 G Rulos which "'"'f: nr,t cnmr,li_,-.,1 1 with Kr. M'tjithin cc-nt1:n(101'\. A$ such, Mr. MAji thia furth1-;7 suh~ltt•A, the ~pplic"t,r.n t~ &trike out thr. ~ppcnl w,s l ncr·r.,potent, it shr-.ul,q h~v~ hec-n -"ismiss0r\ by the l,~,,r.~--: .-:-1..rHl: :.' 1U'4<J"• C'-n thi:;, Mr. R;,it.h"tha, la~rner1 c0uns,.1l f<'r th0. n .. nf''"'n~ent whi. le ccncer-1ing thet the copy of tho •upplcme1· .,,ry r,ic"r.-1 w~s not serven 0n tha app2~.cl'lnt (crigimil rc:-:ponc4c.,·~) he mc1inti"lin•?r-1 that the r10cume11t which wris ,v,t scrv<-1,I w."'r; r-.r-\: ,,n 0ssenti11l -'<'cument. We havr. con si-'erer-1 these submissi-ons closely. ~-t i:; cor.im<'.'n groun.-1 that as some essential l'locuments s11ch ;;. ..' ':he copies of the ju<lgment an.-1 r-1ecree were missing, ~r. R~'lh"thR, lcnrne<I ,::ounsel hat1 prepare/1 a supplementary recorr-1 whic,, incorporl!t<?-~ the;,, mi:;s.in,g '10Cumc-nts. However, "15 c0nro,·h~--1 by Mr. l<Rithatha, a copy of the supplemE:>ntary rec:orr-1 wn:; nol scc-verl on th•~ applicant (r,riginal respon<lcnt). Here, thP. cnix of the mattP.r is the eff~ct of not serving the copy of th0 supplem0ntRry recorrl of appeal on the respon<lent, the applicant b-'.ifore us. This is an issue which ls govcrne.-1 by thG Court' r.- P,il0s qov<>rni rg th<? procP.ssing nr,,1 institution of arr().il:-; r,:forc thj_:-; Court. The preparation an<I service of sunplf'm•.>ntary racor(ls ls provi.-1~,-1 for unner rule 92 (3) which stAt~s: 92 (3) - "An c1ppP.llc1nt mny at nny l:im.-) lo,-1ge in the eppropriat~ registry fo\lr copies of ;i suprl~m0ntary ~ccor~ of Appeal ..... J ( 7 ,11'_'1~ sh.;111 n~. soo_r: ...~.!._,Erac t_i_clll.?,h_e ___ a_,:~::::,r ,, .r t:.1._~ r_ ,10 i r: 9 -~<?.... ~.f"rve .. <;.<?E.i.:•:~ . .9f.. .i_ ';__.£!! ,~.Y.'. !".t ....r.~L~BE.t:'l.~ who has compli el'4 with th-~ r~uir..m0.nts of Rule 19", (r!mr,h,:1::;!_s suppliorl) of law. With respect, Vir. Raithatha' s submission +·'"lat t. ·rhis wns not ,1one even after the learncc1 ~inglo ju~gr hn~ 9iv0n t:hn rc•sponrlcnt a chance to supplemel"lt th:-:i recot·r1. Fur.the.rmorc, il'I filinq ,~n a.p.pl..ic6ti.Dn for an enl.ll~nt: -of -tin.o in which to s,?rvc th.J copy of. the supplementary r,!cor~ on th0. ;')prl lc"'nt. In the Ci.'1S.: of KIGHOMI\ ALLI JVIALIMA v ABAS YI.ISl•F' MWJNG/\1'11'J(1 , Civil App lie ~tion No. 5 of 1987, (unr,~port,,c1) we, r1l l.ow,~c1 ,'3Tl th'?. provir,iors of thi~ Court'• Rules. In th~t f'n::.P the: rule •.•• /0