19901130 TZCA Mwanza

1 1 • ----"--·- . ------· ~. ··- -.-------.----· .- . ·-----. ,) . . ~ I I • IN Tffi; COUl1T OF :~PP:lAL OF Tli.J.ifZANIA - AT M:ii:.UZl.. (CORlJ\'11 NYLLt~LI 2 C•• J. 2 O:M;·J.1 2 J.Lo 9 l'.nd -ll:J.:';iJJii.JH 2 J.L.) CIVIL APPF.AL N'Os 20 OF 1990 E:Tim::IM Till; ASSISTL.NT IMPO:rtTS• CONTROLIER (B.O.T.) J\IWANZA. • • • • • • • •. • • • • • A.PPELL!ll'IT 1:.ND l-1AGlruM ,l.O::ilNCDS COMPliNY LDITTZD. • .. • ~ o RDSPONDENT (Appeal from the Ruling/Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza) \ (Mwalusanya, ,J•) d~°!i?d the 13th day of July, 1989 in ,,~··------ Wiscella.neous Civil cause no. 16 of 1989 .....------:.:.:.-:.-:.:.-:.-::_------------- \ .JUDGIC11T OF THiJ COURT This is an appeal against Q.!l o:rd0r of mandcmus which was granted by th_e High Court of Tanza~ia at Mwo.nza. (N1mlus""nyo., J.) compelling the ~~~~e Con-tl:'Oller (B.O.T), too appellant here, to extend the durc.tion of the import liccn.co hcrmd iasucd to IvL,~.gnum .L~gencics Co,. • Ltd, tho rospcndont. It wao c.lbgcd tho.t tho. rospondont on tho 9/8/1988 wc.s issued with o.n imPort licence for 5,000 orotos of beer from Kenya. (We purposely use thG word ua,llog0d" for :reasons.which will become evident later on).· Th0 9xpiry date was 9th J&nu~ry,,1989. Tho l'Cspondont brought 800 orates of ¥or end before ho could bring tho 1"0mG,ining lot, which ho hoo. alrolldy J?Q.~ for, tho liconco, for reasons not necessary Tho request fo1, tho Gxtonsion of time w;:,,s turned I down. Tho .:r-osPondor:rt....Af'tc:r ~oMo.:i.ning loo.ve, ap:pliod for o..nd wc:,s granted ( ---- - ----~---·- -- What transpired nt tho High Court,is very· materiel for tho determination of this nppoo.l so wo miGht as well delve into that at -this juncture .. The npplico.tion was co.llod for mention on 5/7/1989 when tho appollmit, then the respondent, wn.s absent vthilo the proscnt :respondent, thon tho applicc..nt, vrns roproseintod by Mr. IV"u:i:ta.ta, leo.rnod Counsel. On the do.y of tho h..:iaring, that ,is 11/7/1989, tho appellant was roprcscntod by ono Mr. Bwiro, who, more likely thnn not 1i was than the Assistant Imports Controlloro Mr. Mata.ta made o. submission to which w.:i.s not sworn a.nd in his submission he refexred to o. number of d'ocumcnts which dofinitoly·woro not tondered as exhibits nor is it clear thnt the Court hod. evon n glo.nco o. t . :them. Before us tho respondent -0ontinucd being rcprosontod by Riro Mntatn whi19 tho c.ppollc.nt was a.dvocatcd for by :·.l·. !.fu.rc.ndo, loo.rncd Counsel. Mr. Mnxt.ndo mc1do o.n informnl c.pplicntion .under :J.ulos 3 (2) and 45 (3) (a.) of tho T.a.nza.ni~-Court of ~ppcn.l ~ules, 1979 supported by tho a.ffi®vi t of Er.. Bwirc e It wns sought by r;h• • Mnrcndo thn. t tho said o..ffidavit and the documonts thc.t wore ni;i;o.chod -therewith, which we ha.vc nlrc:::.dy alluded to c.bove, be ad.mittod by this Court c.s pert c.nd pc.rcol of th~ record of c.pporu.~ Ho contended that those do not qualify c.s .:1ddi tiona.l evidence sinco the contents had. al:roc.dy boon p:resont bcforo tho Higb...-Court-honoo..JJ.i.s.-non--rolio.ncc on Rule 34 which don-ls with "Power to ro-app1•0.iso ovidcnco c.nd to ta.kc n.d.d.i tionc..l evidence". However, ~ftor suggestion:::; from tho bench, ho cn:m0 round to ncknowlcd.go thc.t Rulo 34 iD tho rolovilnt one. But then the question cc.mo g the affidavit and tho docum-m.ts-~.ro to be a.cmittod ns additione,l to what Pl'O-(Uisting cVidoncc., 1fi tllout going- into· his l6cus stc..nd_j., it is glo.r.ingly obvi.o't.l.S th.:1t w!mtcvor I,.:r. :SWirc ,hc.d sc.id ccnnot bo' christonnod ,. ,.-'\ ~.-. i -- --··-- " 3 ovidonco., For t~c,t ma.ttor Itr. I:ie:.r-2..ndo c.grcod thct tho:co w:.s no ovidonce adduced even on bolwlf of tho respondent. I rir1t Ifaro.ndo ou1)mittcd · that tho proceedings bcforo tho High Court was a. nullity encl px-c..yod th<J.t they bo qUD.shod. l:Z.~ 1~tn-tc. wo.s· vory o..ffirma.tivc that_ tho procoodings woro sound . o.nd. proper, He sc.j,d thz;.t- wh.J.t h.c.d boon known as prorog.:-.tivo writs a.ro . ' . . now providod for by th0 Law ~lcform (Fc.t<:l Accidents a.nd Miscollci.noous Provisions) Ordinc.nco, Cnp. 360 o.s c.monclod by Act No. 55 of 1968. Section t8 tho:roof' ompowors tho Chief Justice to me.kc. rules of Court proscribing tho p.rocodu:ro to bo ·followed. He ]?Ointod out thc.t those ha,vo not yot boon me.do. Ho then wont on to doscri be tho procedure now in prncticc end tta.t is to file . stctomonts in ,support of e,n a.pplica.tion for q,n order, 2v'ontuo..lly nr. i1:1tc:.te, ,bovrod to tho directions of tho . _ ....... --- ~-~·"'- Co~~~~dcvi ts c.ro· nc~o~~cry c..nd ho wns posi tivo tl111t ho ho..d .--------~~ filed ono 2.t tho High Court. He wo..s given time to dig it out from tho record. i'Thon tho Court; ro-convonod i:Irc :r.:a.t6.ta humbly, but rightly so, concodod tho.t th.ore wc..s no c.ffide:.vi t c.nd thct tho p1~ocoodings. bo.fOJ:C. · tl:lc High C◊u.rt .wc:ro null c,nd void. l~s pro,:pcrly pointoc.l out by Kr • .tb..ro.nd.o tho application, which ,/·. is tho subject of this cpponl, involved ma.ttors ,of both fc.ct c..nd lc..w~ Tho g_uostion of lc.w w.:::.s whotl10:r or not tho nppollo.nt could be compollod i;a oxtond tho duxo.tion of tho import licence. This ca.llod for lognl submissions of .cdvocc..tos. But th~t stcgo could only bo _c,:rrivod o..t nftor tho Cou:rt 1.D.d bocn ~tisfiod t;:.:i.t o..n import licence hnd, as o. rotter of' fa.ct, been issuod to tho rospondont, thct it hnd expired, # thnt n .:rcquoat for i t5·-o;rlcnsion· b.c.d boon me.do c.nd tlmt it ha.d boon :r:cfl.U3ed.• Those ~"-Iv m.:::.ttoI's of evidence, crrl unfortunc..toly none hnd boon deposed oi tl:o:c through ui tnos.sos or by .'.lffido.vi tso Tho submissions by .Mr. Uc.to.:t;c a.t tho ~i.ng of tb.o o..pplicc.tion wore not ovidonco a.nd, ··~/4 ~ ·--· 4 ns nlrcr.dy pointed out, i1r. Dwiro too did not give any. Thus ns tl10 lca.rnod ju<lgo did not lir.vc c factual rosis for n.I.Tiving at t:10 decision ho did, ·:the prococdings wore a.nd c.ro hereby doclc.rcd null· 2..nd void end a.re qun.s!1od. ~t:. Ji,'.Iru:nndo' pra.yod fo1-- costs. Ho submi ttcd that oven ui thout tho sU&:,~stion of the Court he nlready hnd a.s his first g.ro-cnd of .::.ppca.l the fu.iluro of the ler.rnod tricl judge to see tlmt "the pler.d.ings had. been completed, a.nd u • to t.::.k:o evidence on on.th on the po.rt of tho .res,Pondeni0 • We concede tbc,t end 110 nllow the o.ppeal with costs. Befo1·0 we close there is another procedural ma.tter wl:ich hc.s to be brou.ght to tl1e .::.ttontion of the Courts end advocates. We hc.ve seen tlm t tbe c:pplico;tio..'1. for le eve to o.pply for the order wc.s in ti tuled tb.ust 11 MISCii;LUNEQUS CIVIL CAUSJJ NO.- 13 OF 1989 (In the matter of o.n Ex-pru..•tc i~p:plication for I.eave . to o.;iply for ap Order of Mandamus) Iv1.li.GNm1 LGJ.Nc.r,::s CQJ~.;,,rrr LIHIT..]) e O O • • ;J,PLI Cl:.NT TII.'.TI .:..s;3rsT1JJT na>o:am como11r:1R ~ ~ 0 R.'i.NK OF TAWZLNIL; Iv:i:-7.i'.NZiJ. . • • 0 • • • • But the proper inti tulation should 11£!.ve been as e:iq)l~inod in I.loru:;,raed .Ahmed v. ll [J95i7 TIJ.1•• 523 at 524 n.nd Fc.rme1~s :Sus Service c.nd Others v. The TrQ.nsport Liosnsing ..lJ?.!.)0rJ.1. Board fj959] -;J,.L, 779 nt 781. DLT.:ID ut Mt·U.NU this 30th da.y of November, ·1990. F o L.. NYL.Lf~LI CHDF JU8TICE .i ... omo~:... ort'..R JUSTICE OF JlPPE.ilL \ ...... , ...... ---·-----·-. - A. S.L.,RlJl!iJ)H:~I JUSTICE OF ;:i.Prn;l.L I ~ - thi:J.t tb.is is a. true copy of the original. J/fa__i LJ.,)--J (L.D.- K:. rifu-A) SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTR!J.1