tramico investments company ltd vs kahazilege bahigana another 2002 tzhc 2005 30 august 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA A3? PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVI? ION NO'. 22/02 TRAMICO INVESTMENTS COMPANY L T D . . . * * . . . APPLICANT Versus KAH3Z 1L : : T BAHIGANA & ANOTHER . . . . . . . . . . RESP0 NDEN1 RULI NG g fllA H ). J : This is a revision in which this court is being asked to m a i l f y warrant o f issued against a vessel named VQ& BANUSSO I I on the ground that the vessel is the property o f the applicant who is nd a party to the proceedings which led to the attachment order. The applicant is TRAMICO INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITES. One Kahiaileg* Bahlgana file d a chamber application under Section -12 (2) o f the Marchant Shipping Act and Section 133 o f the Employment Ordinance Cap- ...... 366 and Section 95 o f the C iv il Procedure Code 1966 praying fo r p^ymen* o f wages* The Managing ^Director DENp-TAXI RESOURCES LTD in the chamber application is t&»- r e s i d e n t * She application was file d in court on 19/13/9^ ifr * K a liz iio g a Bahigane is the respondent in th is re v is io n a l This applicntion in the subordinate court was heard erpnrte, At+ewpta to hove th le e^pw te docre© s e t aside was not successful* I t was in the o f the decree that the vessel which the subjvet matter o f these proceedings was s3A?.ft1s«2.- Objection procedtoge were f ile d in tbe subordinate court to challenge the attachment but were <Ji«*UeaiU • The d^emisfeal © f -£tie o b je ctio n i a yhat h^s led to th© ftS-ijag o f th is revision# She revlsxoai te e boon file d under S+<rH.<ma bb ( l ) o f the Magistrates. Dowrte Act 1984 as w e ll ae 5«<rb6oa and Section 95 + r the C iv il £*ocedwre Code 1966 as w ell as Order XXI rtile 24 (2) and Rule 57 o f the C iv il Procedure Code, 1966* !Hie applicant is being represented Vy Hr. Dupcen. learned Adrocate# Jibe jfespatMU®* 1 - 3<rk The respondent •*-.,!.... Tt9 & i± 0 x>£ Objection# Ihe p a rties file d w ritten submission fo r and agnin^t the application under the d irection o f this court* Ua» same with the prelim inary objection , Apparently, the respondent has not file d 0 rep ly to the preliminary ctbjotffctos TXOr a rep ly tg. th* itfsin application. Although he has file d a ■ *»' 2 .*> s6eking fQr 0/ g ° ? ile the ^ it ^ ^ worthy allowing the application to proceed to JuXLhearing o f the chatiber application because at the ear o f the day i t m ig lit not a lte * th* out' come o f the revisio n , This view is being expressed a fte r a thorough study Of the proceedings in the t r ia l court as w ell us the jresen t application and the submissions file d . I t is important fo r me to mention that the research done by the parties 16 appreciated* I thank them for th eir e ffo r ts . Their submission is o f assistance in the disposal o f this application* E » firs t point of preliminary objection is that the application * tine borwd. Haring inspected the record of the trial court and the tiae *he» the revision was filed, 1 w ill say that this objection h-s no mart*. e ruling in which this revision is being preferred was delivered on 13 February 2002. Oils revision was filed on 19th February 2002. While I appreciate the sutedaeion mode by the respondent on this point, the truth of the'matter is that he is mistaken. Mr. Duncan submitted correctly that the application was filed on the sfarth day after delivery of the ru lin g . I t was file d within tim e. Regarding the second point o f ob jection , the respondent s e tt* to be ooncemed why Mr* Duncan cited both Section 79 <1> of the Civil Procedure Code 1966 and Section 4 V (i) of th6 Courts Act. His opinion 4 » th at U r. Duncan should have been s p e c ific on which provision o f the he Is re ly in g ^ rather than quoting both o f them. £, other words the applicant ought to say whether she is relyin g on Section 79 (1 ) Qf the C iv il Procedure Code 1966. or Section 44 (1) 0f the Magistrates Courts Act,* MrMmoci/,% response is d etailed . However the point raised by the respondent has substance given tb » d iotin otloa «r£ stin g in the circumstance© of the application of the two provisions. The provision o f S eetio * 99 o f the C iv il Procedure Code 1966 are r e s tr ic tiv e , They « e lim ited to ju risd iction that is acting without ju risd iction or « e r c is in g ^ (1) ^ brooder, coverin_ *11 aiiyrurastaucee- r e fle c tin g error- m aterial vo iuc __ .• of the case in volvin g in ju s tic e. Given tW diotlncirion i t is lmpon?auv ^ tfc* applicant to point o «t s p e c ific a lly the provision which is being r e lie d upon rather ish^ doing a guess work. A ll the s sine *the Qie provisions is . not a fa ta l mistake warranting the dismissal o f the application* Begarding the c itin g o f Orders XXI Rule 2k (2) and Hale 57 I mu*t say they were quoted out o f contest0* to ns far os these provisions are concerned. *hey hove no relationship at a l l with these proceedings while */5 - » * * , . , « . - r " « - • * _ _4«-i , . AS Deiore this court apart from r : i ? t *** tbe* ™ u - “M c h * ™ « « « « » » . J l ^ U o T In T * * * « ‘ o the filin g o f the p ^ r : z mr m M t m k ° ** * * cited. B PrOTlslons * - “ H i - revision hsve teen The respondent has also raised ^ ^ Section 112 ( D nr • v " «rg »*e n t to the e ffe c t th*# under on 11d K1) of the -lercv^vt. Shitnrfuff Anf -!a<o *u ~ : . ~ r r " ■ ■ "*•• * •“ i» *• objection b -tn0t ° m° t te r WhlCh CM be * r8U<kf' by P w ^ w a y - C 2 - — ~ cn&lyfldd the oxvrudonfrs o"ivan ■fvi «■ _ . cA w m ~ r arguments slven *» respect of the prelimin-rv Section, I must conclude by saying that the prelim inarv +-s . » » merit. It is dismisse d. iainary objection has ®ie next step is to look at the application submittedthat by tire +i~G eumi * ^ revision. Mr* Puooah y tIrc 0 **fc*nent Cause No. 264 of 1997 wee dat«*- mined, the vessel J&ANUSSO I I v a a M +* aeteiw debtor (DEN •. a»N KES0EM?5S>. The reason & property of th» 3udgmefit . reason given is th?t DEM -TAN KESOURfSFQ • » S o lv e d to a g h Court Civil Cose No, 106 of 1996 whi,* ■, o»ership <rf .he vessel to pass to & t a t u « i s 0U o» j J d f rl G o «n tri^ Thereafter, the vessel wa«. , * Developing (Mr Nimrod mv \ n». tinder the Receiver/Manager otaershit) a T T V&SSel SOld t0 Flshi^ Company and ownership was transferred to it on 24th February. 1997 f t » Z * stage, on 20th December. 2000 the ««, n ^v 3W 1 n r ^PPlicant bought the vessel from JSMgol Fi. shing Company Limited* e v e n t T lh ^ ^ r ^ L T 0OTr“ * * th<> “ «■— ■<* 191b Deeember, 1997 BBMKN BESOt^OT L m i S ^ ^ tri° 1 CWlrt °n * the veseel 3 , ^ 0 n . ^ J ira le e iw the objection proceeding The -eou ”” ‘ r i ° 1 ° ° Ur* eho„ thot the ves sel woe sold e v e n ^ t h T m L by the decree holder Ihe i ° application a p p l e t because ^ Z ^ to the p r o c e , ^ Z T ^ T ^ ° to be heard*. given the opportunity if •Old by an ^ ™ 8Bl " ° s to e n t e r s the case. He citld Brguing that exclusive Jurisdiction i * Merchant Act 196?, o season or apprentice Z ^ T f te th* « * * » * •**« "nder th, authority of reCWer7 ° f * « ■ « » -p . * -old Court Civil ^ T ^ o T Z X T e 1^ ^ 1 th6 ° ° ”3ent °rdCI' " ade 111 * • » High Of sttlement by the Z 7”” '* * ” riBht ° f — of the veesel « * * £ 1D » W W or any otjver legelactt'm* ^ +*. ™*T without recount to court th* •* „ ^ ' l f the DEN - T-N SOURCES defaulted the r epayinellt schedule. I f aKpears thet ^ ***** « d *o H V * * * o f thevessel s. ^ 0URCES d e b it e d was put under receivership and +h ‘ ' ^bseguently D5U. TAN RESOURCES w v iv e r a n ip and the veaeel (BANin^n rr\ ^ Fishing- Company. <MraSoO TO was sold to Tnngol * « r : ™ 2 t c , i n 7 - * ? * * * ° f th* ™ ' ■“ * — Applicant, there no JustificaH * t ^ the” to the holding that th, sale w j t t l l T t f ° r the. tr101 nastatot« the vaastl show that at the time thl OTMn,tton* »> » h iM ^ y of 4w1_- the decree holHer “file./* +Vi« M ■ ■ ««. the vessel * * no longer the p ro -rty of t\ “* ■ - other irrogulorltx 3 <‘eM° - eowt lacked Jurladlction to e n tertaiT rtl t " ^ ^ * * ****** decree hoM er/fe tria l court because th * h “ * ” 1<>d ** o f Mteno anc, 0ompMy AdvoJ aektOT " M Duncan submitted c o r r e c tly th^t the> j? * oot Joined into the Proceedings J the J i t ^ “ d "* obtaining the leave of th. au h c w * "* «re t oTmjwoCB. £ * - « » 9 ° f *»• the injustice ^ ^ tho ~ S ™ “ “ ‘ U » « w t a of te e n t e r t a i i i ? ? ‘r I a h=d « Shis fa a „ «,* ♦ * ^ ich fa lls 3c,ro _ Ue! by tha » « « • holder. » (1> « * - Procedure ^ 3° ° tlOT proceedings which were challenged thi. T °b3octi° n * >fcole proceedings in the trial * *■ " 1,111 SU° ”oto revise the C° Urta Act’ 19 * ^cause they a r H ^ ° f th° 2 * of r o r c -I r T c ^ s 6 CI,tlr“ rr° Ce''dl^ S iD ^ y . e n t Cause N0. N.P.Kimaro i“T 4 “UEGE ^0/08 ^?rv\r%