19940817 TZHC Dar es Salaam

iT DAR ES SAL.A.AM CIVIL CASE N0~279 OF 1992 ,,., LADH,LAUS J\'IKANGARA 1·Lu..GESA • • • ~ 0 ~ • 0 0 ~ 0 0 • • • & 0 0 • • .A.PP~INTIFF versus THE ATTORNEY GENERAL D ♦ 0 ,0 a o O ~ 0 0 0 0 a O O. C •• ~DO. ft 0 DEFENDANT RULING MAINA, J. This is an application by the Attorney General for leave to appeal to the Gnu.rt of Appr_,:::1,l to the Court of Appeal against -~_.,., the decision of this Court (Bahati, J) in VJhj ch the respondent, Ladislaus T1kangara l'-iagesa, '\.vas 2.we.rded damages totalling shs.13~450,®tO/=~ In his submission 1 Mr. Nwidundc,, learned State 1Lttorney, submitted that JP.ave was required under section~ (1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, No. 15 of 1979 and that a point of law is involved. Mr. Nagesa counsel for the ,Respo- ndent argued that leave was not required and if it wal rBQuired, the A~plicant has not stated the point of iaw, Un~r the. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, there are _provisions in whi~ leave is NQUir€d ~efore any pe:cson -oan appea.t to the -loort of Appeal.. Sections 5 (1) (a) and (c) of the Act prc,.r~ e as follows:- J 1 u Il\ --•ivil proo-aed.:i.ngs, except where any. other w:1 \ter1 law for th0 time being in f i:n·ce previ~es ~th•twise, an appcr.. l shall lis ta the Cou.rt ·,•1 A~~~a.l -- \sj against_e~ery decree, includtng an ~x-nb,rte \r pr~l~:i.nary decre€. ~,de b.y th~ Rm•~-u.r:t ~n a suit under the Civil Prooe<lure ¥.'~, t,6~ i~1 tJ:_ie exercise Jf its or~ina1 · ,urisdiction. -(· · ♦ 0 ,f e o .- C O • • o • .(•1 ~tth the leave Jf the High Court or of; ~he · ._J"'urt . of Appe:.=-i.l: ags.inst every Oither d~ee, ~~~r, judgment, decision or fi:nabg 1t •hB .. ·· .t.. .: ~-~-.. e~rt • l1 . . ~ . ' ·' - . i ' ., ... lt · §'ee~ ,·,t• tne that there is automatic right Pt appea~ C_ju;t jt A~peal ~~ainst a. d~cr~e . or_ or~er. df' the . . ·, . ~."j . 1 to -t1:\~ Hirn Co\i<tt t1 exercise of i t.s original JurisdJ.ct1.v-,t exc.ep1G ,._~"'-:;,~- -· ~ ........ ... ......... .:.;_ ..";.~ I 2 where there is v,ri tten law to the contrary. In the !resent 2. case, there is a decree of the High Court which was passed in exercise of its c-rigj_m=tl jurisd.ic'tion. There is, therefdre, a automatic right of appeal to the~· Court of Appeal.· It is only in cases ~~t covered by section 5·(1) (a) and (b) of the Act where leave wou.Ld be requirt•d, ei tner by the High Court or , . the Court of .Appee. l ,. I agree wi tb Ivir. Magesa that in this case• where the Respond•J:.::t was awe,rded d.am::.ges for personal injuries, leave to appeal to Court of Appe~l is ~ot required. I may just mention in passing tbat Mr. Mwidundo said there I..._ is a point of law, and that is, the quantum 6f damages. The trial judge reduced the damagAs claimed from shs.13,45t,ooi/=. Mr. :Mwidundo complains the.t rw creterio for the amount awarded. That may be a point o.: lo:,11, ·out 1s I hr:.ive r,t::ited leave tJ appeal to the Court of Appeal is ~c~ ~½q~ired. If I am wrong, then '"• ,_.., I find that a point of law i8 i.r11rnlveds and so leave would be gran,teq.. 5.'he applicant raay :pr00-E,,Hl tt, ::1ppee.l . to the Court of Appeal. . I· '1 ·I 1 . \{11 .t'c·' ;I' •• . w J. JV.tAINA C -HJDGE Delivered in Chambers this 17th day of August 1994 in the, pres.enc.e of Mr, Kamba., .State l-1.:t.tcirne.yr and Ivl~ .... Ifia.g~sa counsel for tha kespendBnt. W. J ~ MA.INA •• • JU!)GE 17 August 1994 .....