20170825 TZCA Dar es Salaam 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MUSSA, J.A., MUGASHA, J.A., And MWAMBEGELE, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2014 WINLAND NGISANJATAA MAKULE, } THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ............................... APPLICANT LATE GRACE MAKULE VERSUS CRDB BANK LTD ..................................................................... RESPONDENT .. •'• .·, ... (Revision of the decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (Shangwa, J.). · th _dated the 20 day of Nove~-~~~-:'.~~-~3 · .... _ ·-. . . ~ ,~. .. . . . . . · in· . .: Misc Civil Cause .No. 109 of 2012 -------- . RULING OF THE ·toURT.. . ·. 22nd August, & 31 st October, 2oi1 MUSSA, J.A.: . ··:· ·.·· .· The applicant seeks to· revise an order of the High Co.urt (Shangwa, J.) dated the 20th November, 2013 through which his application for review was rejected on acGount of inEompetency. The application is by way of a Notice of Motion which is predicated under section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Chapter 141 of the Revised Laws. The same is supported by an affidavit which was duly sworn by the applicant. The application is being resisted by the respondent through an affidavit in reply which was duly sworn by Mr .. ~ale Kaba Mpoki, the 1 --·- -----------------------======--------- learned Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Mpoki has additionally enjoined a Notice of preliminary point of objection to the following effect:- "1. The application is incompetent for being time barred 2. The application is incompetent as the proceedings sought to be revised have not been annexed to the notice of motion or affidavit 3. The application is in competent for failure to annex a copy of the order sought to be revised'~ -~ At the ·hea·rihg befote us, applitc1'ii'f-··\w~:fs~·: f~r1din9. :fd~·-: hir:Ms~~rr;·:; .;·': - ';.~: ~:·;: unrepresented, . whereas the ·respondent h~d":·,·th~:,". s~·rV.i·~~~- ·g/.fh:e·, ~l~~ia'/' ·, /'.'.·;\ -'i?}}::. mentioned Mr·. Mpoki. When we invited thitJ~:tter to.address: US: .Pn the: : _:· :·. ·: preliminary points of objection, Mr. Mp~ki,~_;_~h~ri:a.:J,ied:":.th~·.:~.firsL.:·,;o.iot-· ~:.::·::·~ ..::::~·:~ ·::·.·· ...':. ··-·-~ .-·.- .. ·.. ····:· :of .·_. .:d. _.•·.-' _·: ·~· preliminary objection. As regards the remaining points -of objection, he fully adopted his written· submissions· ·which·;:he:·had\;a·r1iet-filecF1n·:·.support thereof. In the written submissions, the -learned .counsel for the respondent strenuously argues that, in the absence of:the impugned·proceedings and···· · · · • • • • • • ': • ,•• ••••••r·•••••••• •••,•,••~f"•--' • ,,:.,--.-_. ~ • • •-• •• drawn order,. the Court cannot be expected to revise and quash the proceedings and an order which is not before it. To fortify his contention, Mr. Mpoki referred us to two decisions-~ viz - Mabalanganya Vs Sanga [2005] 1EA 236 and VIP Engineering Vs Mechmar Corporation [2006] 2EA 345. On his part, the applicant conceded that the impugned proceedings and drawn order are not annexed to the application. But, even as he so conceded, the applicant insistently urged us to afford him time so as to amend or adjust the Notice of Motion and put on record the required 2 . I documents. The applicant was of the view that such allowance may be accommodated under Rule 14(4) and (5) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). To this submission, Mr. Mpoki's short answer was that giving room to the applicant to amend the Notice of Motion would unjustifiably pre-empt the preliminary points of objection. Having heard the submissions from either side, we think that this matter need not unnecessarily detain us as it . is now settled, upon • n.un1e·rou$ decisions that . fa,il.ure • , ' to .'annex-, 1tle.~_ih;lp_(fg"i;1:ed·. proce~d_ings,.,., ·_. -, :.:.·. . .• - .. · .:. · , _.,,· .. r:•· ..... , . · -,,. .i. - . :.decision-,. or -order vitiates the .entire applicatio'rt'for.''fev·isfon. In this regard, .• ·- ,.",, ,., ' -.: ... • ..,, ... -•-•,.,:"•,!•~ •.,.~; ... :.-.... . .... • .... .• • . . ••. we need only refer to Mabalanganya. Vs ~a,f~9,,~. (§~pra)-,:yYP~~~--~he ~ourt ........ -... . - : . ' ,·., ... ,'.... ..;-:. . ·- ~ . .' . ----~-- . .>·-;~ ... ; .-.;, . . ... _•. ~_;..:.._ ·--. observed:- ' • .. 0 • •' • o ,:-.-•: • ,; :' ••• .... •.•, F, • • • , •..- ' •, • • -~.- • ' ... , -• •• 'Jo . ·.:·· ·.. . .::::·.-~:.:.::·~,--·~·-;·.;°': ..;·~·-···-··..>..".·,.:._.: ;, .: "Revision entails examin,a.tion.-..:by .tbls · : '. .. ~--. _-~~ ; ... :_ ....... ·;. ·- . • •• 1 . . . . . . . . . . ..,. ·- ... • . . ~ ···- ·.- . • • . ·• • ' •. ·• - ., . . Court there proceedings ·cord-:.-of any · before the High Court for'/:11~"pti-;bse:"'/5t.· :·:.. •·., ,<,•C., -•·... -. ·. .: . .. ,:.·.· .,:-: :. "·:·· :;:··;.: ,.·.·•--: .. ·.. •· .......... ·· '.''.' satisfying itself as to. the tdrrectnes~ . . . legality or propriety of any finding/ order- ··:-·:_: ·,_. • ---..... ,... ·.. or other decision and the regu!arity.i1{'·,;_- _--;;~--:: .._: __ ..·.·:·-.\·_:·.--:···~---:.::.~:-:.:~-:.-: _. any proceedings before the High Court anct in the case of the appellate jtJrisdiction. of the High Court, then the record of the lower Court or Courts, must be before this court This is glaringly certain from the very definition of what revision entails... '~ 3 ~ --·-.:.·-·-·---. -~--- ---···· --------- _,_ .. . - -- - ·---- --·- .. .. - , ___ . .. - --· -- --- ..... ·- • •- -• --• • -- L It was therefore necessary for the applicant to lodge, together with the Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit, copies of the impugned proceedings and drawn order. Rule 14 of the Rules only relates to amendments or adjustments that may be directed by the Registrar prior to the lodgment of the documents. Once the Notice of Motion is lodged, an amendment cannot be allowed, more particularly, in the face of a preliminary objection as is the case in the situation at hand. ·'. AJJ.·$.a_i9; . . : - th,iS· application.:is incomp~t¢ri'(~nq✓.,.~¢pqr:tJfng!iJQ)~Ji~:m.~:J?.. . . .. . . . . -. - . . . . . . / .. _:':. ·-: ,._ .,. . ' . -·. .. ' ._ . ~ _·•. ~truckout with costs. -i ,· ~·...:....-._. . . . . . ·.'-.~- ...... :· ,.:... •• ;:··:--.:-.:· ~~·~_-,:·.::":,.. • . : .... . . - -~- :: "; •• -.~ • • DATED at DAR ES SALAAM. this 25th day .ot-Aug\~if:·iffi}:.:_· · / :· .. ·: :_·. ;. .. · -. : .. ·· •· • • • - •• ,.: • • •• ,;.n . . ••,••'• ~,..., : . , :.~ -~,:;•~:.•·•• •::: ~ _,,::-,:.:.~• •. • : • • .. • ; , : ~ " • : • ~ : . '.'',,'.•,• •::: •••• •:•·•••·: .. •• K. M.MUSSA<·:i' '..~·.-..·\;·.·;_:-:-;·~~:-·~:~::·:~~·,'·.·-":,: _.:··:· ··<:·c: _,· .· .: ,: __ ,_ ..-.'.: :.·. -.-~:· JUSTICE OF APPEAL . . ·- . . · ..... · ····.· ·: ., ·... .-.:. -· ·. s. E.. A. MUGA$HA.i :· '::.~:.. :. ::.. <\(::: . . •,· ...·_: :O:::'.:.:~.. :· · : :-..:: . . . JUSTICE OF APPE·AL:- .· · ···· ·- ,... · .: · ·· . .. . ·. :·. ' ·. ··. J.C.M.MWAMBEGELE - - JUSTICE Of APPEAL . ··---·- -•--· ·· '".. · ···,4:-,-~ ;~\'-· · ··· · - ····-~----- -- .. , , ,• •• ~; .: •••. , ,.;.. ·,_ '"• ,'. ~-::.··~ • • '•.' ·,. . i.:.;:~ -•.11'• ' - ,.... _. •/.••:-'.; :.:.:;i\> _......... ~ .. -. • --~- ·:. • ,... , . ·... -.- _.•·..•-"-,, . ••-· I certify that this is a true copy of the original. - \ A. H. M lJMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 4 .... --·--·-· --··· ------,-· ...