tramico investment company ltd vs kahizilige bahigana another 2002 tzhc 2026 30 august 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA A3? PAR ES SALAAM CIVIL SEVI-ION NO, 22/02 , TRAMICO INVESTMENTS COMPANY L T D . A P P L I C A N T Versus ' *• KAH3Z 1L::T BAHIGANA & ANOTHER RESPONDENT ■.i. "*’ R U L I N G KIMASO. J: This is a revision in which this court is being asked to stt3.li.ty> * warrant Of issued against a vessel named BANUSSO II on the ground that the vessel is the property of the applicant who is not a party to the proceedings which led to the attachment order. ' The applicant is TRAMICO INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITES. One Kahiaileg* Bahigana filed a chamber application under Section -12 (2) of the Marchant Shipping Act and Section 133 of the Employment Ordinance Cap- ... 366 and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code 19 6 6 praying for p^ymen* of wages* The Managing Director DENp-TAXI RESOURCES LTD in the chamber application is t*4* r e s i d e n t * She application was filed in court on 19/ 13/ 9^ Kolizilcgs Bahigane is the respondent in this revisional This applicntion in the subordinate court was heard erpnr+e. Attempts to hove thle e^pwte docre© set aside was not suceeesful, It was in the of the decree that the vessel which the eubfret matter of these proceedings was s3A?.ft1s«2.- Objection procedtoge were filed in the subordinate court to challenge the attachment but were <Ji«*UeaiU • The of -tbe ia yhat h^s led to the of this revision# Tku» revision- tee boon filed under S+<rH.<ma bb (l) of the Magistrates. Courts Act 1984 as well ae 5«<rb6oa and Section 9 5 +r the Civil E*ccedwre Code 19 6 6 as well as Order XXI rtile 24 (2) and Rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1 9 6 6 * !Hie applicant is being represented Vy Hr. Dupcen. learn** Adrocate. Jhe jfespatMU®* i- 3<rk rr«pi<»e«iTted, ■Tlie respondent •*-.,!.. .of -Objection. Ihe parties filed written submission for and agnin^t the application under the direction of this court* Ua» same with the preliminary objection, Apparently, the respondent has not filed 0 reply to the preliminary objotftion Txor a reply to- thi* nfcin application. Although he has filed a * aa^licetioa seeking for extera ion o / S f l U the * * »* , i t U not worthy allowing the application to proceed to fuXLhearing o f the chamber application because at the enc o f the day it m iglit not alter th* out come o f the revision, This view is being expressed after a thorough study Of the proceedings in the tria l court as well us the jresent application • and the submissions file d . I t is important for me to mention that the research done by the parties 16 appreciated* I thank them for their effo rts. Their submission is o f assistance in the disposal of this application. fir s t point o f preliminary objection is that the a p p lica tio n * tine borwd. Haring inspected the record o f the tr ia l court and the tiae *he» the revision was file d , 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 file d on 19th February 2002. While I appreciate the sutedaeion mode by the respondent on this point, the truth o f the'matter is that he is mistaken. Mr. Duncan submitted correctly that the application was file d on the sfarth day after delivery o f the ruling* It was filed within time. Regarding the second point o f objection, the respondent to be oonewned why Mr* Duncan cited both Section 79 <1> o f the C ivil Procedure Code 1966 and Section 4 V (i) o f th6 Courts Act. His opinion 4 » tbot Ur. Duncan should have been specific on which provision o f the he is relying ^ rather than quoting both of them. £, other words the applicant ought to say whether she is relying on Section 79 (1) 0f the Civil Procedure Code 1966.or Section 44 (1 ) 0f the Magistrates V* Courts Act* MrMmoci/,% response is detailed. However the point raised by the respondent has substance given tb» ALsttectloa. «r£sting in the ' circumstance© o f tha application o f the two provisions. The provision o f Seetio* 99 * 0 o f the C ivil Procedure Code 1966 are restrictive. They « e lim ited to jurisdiction that is acting without jurisdiction or flKercising ^ (1) ^ brooder, coverin_ *11 aixyrurastaiFce®- reflectin g error- material vo iuc __ .• of the case iowilving injustice. Given tW diotlncirion it is impon?auv ^ tfc* applicant to point o «t sp ecifically the provision Which is ’being relied upon rather tfear-* doing a guess work. A ll the ssine*the Qie provisions is. not a fatal mistake warranting the dismissal of the application* Regarding the citing o f Orders XXI Rule 2k (2) and Rule 57 I mu*t aay they were quoted out of contest0* to ns far os these provisions are concerned. *hey hove no relationship at a ll with these proceedings while */5 7 ereThat th lr ^ V t' " this eepect ay feeling. - * nothin* * the e p p l ^ t j z z i : Z Z I J Z ^ T 6^ * * _ _4«-i ,. AS Deiore this court apart from r : i ? r d O T t t s - • t h e « * » z . p ^ r : z m r m M t m k ° * * - * * « - ^ cited. B PrOTlslons * - “ H i - r e g i o n h=ve teen The respondent has also raised an onawent ^ Section 112 (D nr • v ' «rg»*ent to the effect th*# under on 11d K1) o f the -lercv^vt. Shitnrfuff Anf -!a<o *u ~ : . ~ r r " ■ ■ "*•• * •“ i» *• objection b -tn0t ° m° tter WhlCh CM be * r8U<kf' by P w ^ w a y - C 2 — « ozioXyBod the oxvrudonfrs o"ivan ■fvi «■ _ . cA w m ~ r arguments slven *» respect o f the prelim in-rv Section, I must conclude by saying that the preliminarv +-s u » » merit. I t is dismissed. iainary objection has ®ie next step is to look a t the application submittedthat by tire +i~G eumi * ^ revision. Mr* Puooah y tIrc 0 W&owtnt Cause No. 264 o f 1997 was dftt « « - mlned, the vessel J&ANUSSO I I was no +* aeteiw debtor (DEN •. a»N KES0EM?5S>. The reason & property o f th» 3udgmefit . reason given is th?t DEM -TAN KESOURfSFQ • » S o lv e d to a gh Court C iv il Cose No, 106 o f 1996 which V r f T o.nership <rf .he vessel to pass to S it a t u ^ U o n jJ d f rl Go«ntrie^ Thereafter, the vessel wa«. , * Developing (Mr Nimrod mv \ n». tinder the Receiver/Manager otaershi* a T 7 V&SSel S° ld t0 960801 Flshi^ Company and ownership was transferred to i t on 24th February. 1 997 f t a T T * 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 t h !^ 0OTr“ * * th<> “ «■— ■<* 19®. Beoember, 1997 BBMKN BESOtC^ L m i S ^ ^ t r i° 1 CWlrt ° n * the veseel 3 , ^ 0 n . ^ J ir a le e iw the objection proceeding a , -eou ”” ‘ r i ° 1 ° ° Ur* show thot the ves sel w03 sol d e v e n ^ thT m L by the decree holder Ihe i ° application a p p l e t fc w . ; ; 2 Z Z Z \ ° ° * ° e T 6 t o t h e to the p r o c e ^ Z T ^ T ^ ° to be heard*. given the opportunity A if •Old by an ™ 8Bl ,,os to e n t e r s the case. He c itld Brguing that exclusive Jurisdiction 1 <■ * 6 Merchant Act 196?, » seaman or apprentice Z ^ T f te th* « * * » * r i m ™ * r the authority o f r~ J 0t ^ ^ SMP * ■ « - Court C iv il ^ T ^ o T Z X T e 1^ ^ 1 th6 °°”3ent °rdCI' " ade ** « * High m30 1,58 ™ o f»ttia m e nt b y the par« « 7 ^ r ^ r r ^ ^ j r r a rleh t ° f P— t a o f the vessel « * * £ 1D ^ or any otjver legelactt'm * ^ +*. ™*T without recount to court th* •* ~ ^ ' l f the DEN - T-N the r epayinellt schedule. I f aKpears thet ^ SOURCES defaulted ***** « d *o H V * * * o f th eveS sel s . ^ 0URCES d e b i t e d was put under receivership and +h ‘ ' uteequently D5U. TAN RESOURCES wviveranip and the veaeel (BANin^n rr\ ^ Fishing- Company. <MraSoO TO was sold to Tnngol * « r : ™ 2 t c , i n 7 - * ? * * * ^ applicant, there no JustlficaH * t ^ ” d the” to tho holding that th, sale w a a t t l l T ; ^ ^ the VM S,! shows that at the time th l OTMn,tton* »> » h lM ^ y o f 4w1_- the decree holHer “file./* +Vi« M * * * oourt, the vessel * * no lo nger the p ro -rty o f t\ “* ■ - other irrogu lorltx 3 <‘eM ° - eow t lacked Jurisdiction to e n te r ta iT r tl t * ^ ^ * * ****** decree h oM er/fe tr ia l court because th * A % h “ * ” 1<>d * * Of Mkono and Company A d v o c a te s T ^ ^ a<,ktOT Duncan submitted correctly th^t the> p a »o t joined into the Proceedings a j the J i t ^ “ d "* obtaining the leave o f th. m * rW t " * d vltho“* « » t ******* ° * * W B. £ 9 °f « » the in ju stice ^ ^ tho ~ S ™ ie “ ‘ U »«w t a of t e ; t r I a l c o u r t h a d “ Shis fa a aattsr which fa lla 30^ 1, und . th 7 dMree h° M '* - * ( 1) o f the Procedure i * % 2 Z I T ^ T ° ' 3° ° tlOT proceedings whlofc were challenged thi . ! ° y 6 ol>3“ «o n >fcole proceedings in the tr ia l ' *■ " 1,111 SU° ” oto revise the Act, 19M because they a r H ^ °f ^ 2 * of ^ Z ' o l Z Z T c ^ l CI,tlr“ iD ^Plojnnent Cause * . N.P.Kimaro iTUEGE ^0/08 ^?rv\r% I