20010412 TZHC Mbeya

A--'1 'To {L Kt~··· uJ ., ;c c:,.A_lt, ~~ I ') f ) j -- I '-' .I .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ~et,.NZl\.NIA AT. MBEYJ\. . ---=-->'= r· ~~ .i. MIBCEtLANEOUS CIVIL AFPLIGA'l'ION NO. 13' OF 1999 (ORGINAL MBEYA DISTRICT COURT CIVIL CASEO:N0.92 OF j994) . '·', . . ' •\. YESAYA TE\.JELA M';!AMBUNGU O 0 e O O O O O O ~ 0 0 ~ 0 C • APPLICANT VERSUS . NoB.C. HOLDING CORFOPJ,TICN ••••••••.• •• .RESFONDENT o .. ' . .,.,.ft. Yesaya Tewela Mwambungu has taken::.Jut 0 chamber summons by ~hicb he has I instituted' a chamber arplication seeking the following orders:- ( 1) that this a1,plication be entertained out of time; • ( 2) that the rulin0 in the Ifoeya District Court Civil Case No.92 of,1994.dated 9th January, 1997 be revised and be quashed; that he be f;iven leave to Pstile&t a written statement of defenc..e to.the counter. claim ~n the /~:.Civil Case, presumably No.92 of 1994; ( 4) that this Court do order that Civil Case N◊ .. 92 of 199L1 ~hould proceed to full hearing and final cletermination. The applicati~n is s1;1pported' by the affidavi:.lt of the applicant. In order to lay a clear b6l.ckground to what I propose to say about that affidavit I have deemed it expedient·-t~ reproduce it in extenso, namely: ... •· 1,, Y.2Al~YA TE0JELA MWAiJ3UNGU 1 an adult christian~ of Uyole area, :1 Mbeya, do :hereby solemnly swear and state on· oe.th as follows:- 1. I am the plaintiff in Civil Ca~e No~92/94 at the Mbeya Distri cf Court " · This case was finished in a manner that will appear in the followine; paras of this affidavit. 2, In the said Civil Ca~e ..th~. -- __ ~.. de:fenclant . was the former National ,\_ Bank o~ Commerce the yire5ecessor of the respondent~ The ~aid defendant had counter~cl~imed under Order 35 of the CPC in the -SU,m of r41s.9,676.,194/45 as at 25/10/1994 allegedly being the outstandirig amoMt togethe;. with interest and . .. . . ' .~ . .. .. ,. . bank: Gn~ei arising . out of a t~rm loan and l'J'O'erdraft ~ ..._ ~ amounting.to shs.3,700,obo/- taken in 1987. 2 3. The main suit that I had filed was for pray~ts that my prOJ)erty which had been wrongfullf attached by 'the Bank be returned to me o The said property was a V almet Tractor ,. t . · Noo-· TZ 86392 and an Isuzu 7 ton Lorry ·No. MB 3769. The said veh.J.-cles had t•efu ·v1rongfully Gro.11bed.and attached by · ... the Bank ~n May, 1989. A. I do not dis;.)ute that I took- the. s3id loc.n .... nd. · · overdr~ft of shs.3, 700 1 000/= from 'the res1)onclcnt ·' .., in 1987,. Bnt my complain_t is that the Eccl: <hd. .not follow tho loan agreer.,1ont in attachin::,; Ii1Y. -~ . . .. property' as follqws:- ' (8) P(?rt', 3 of the :f?.swc' S, letter· a:pkfdvin:,; .) m:l loc.:a of shs.'-3, 400,000/= st~~ulato~ . ·.. tli.:-.t' the first inst.:ilrnont of· ~lu3~l ?0 1 000/= · towc::.rds · repaymsnt of the loan was c1.uo to b(! pp.id in Jun0, 1983-1, Yet as (}orly ·as -1·o 4. 19~8 the Bank h::1d started cl2.Lo.,ing th::,.t I wss over-due in rcp3yment · of the lo~;l1 ::md that I ws.s not adherine to tho (b) Para 10 of the said B~rik'·s letter stipul3ted thai tho loan was secur~d ; : by 111y; farm at Uyolo registered u..11.dcr Certificate of 0ccu~pancies Nos.3734 L/o I1~0s. 72125 ci'nd. 72131 valued nt thc::ti:. . - ' ' time at shs.4 7 .100, 000/=. . ' , . YJ.t · the Rank· grnbbed the said . . . . '. ' · .c~ . motor cehicJ,e s, .inste3d of fore closing cnc1 se 1,li:r.tg. the -;:nortge,g~ d f grm. ~ :. . . . (c) /{s s·t;at.cd· above, lXT3 :3 of the B":nt;: 1 s le ttor stipultte c('.t1iat the first ro1),·1ymont instalment was supposed to be :,·i;:,.id in June, 1989~ Yet the Bank a-tt::.ched the sc:id motor-vehicles in M::;y~ 1989 before the stnr.t of the aC5reed repayment period. Attached are copies of the soid Br~.nk 1 s letter IDE1rked .<1 and B to be p:::.:rt of this affi d.::ivi t. • ,/3 3 5. What he.s been stated lJura 4~ apove we.s in . the theme in the sai·d Ci.vil Case N~. 92/94 which I filod at the District. Court of Lboya prayinG for the return of the said motor- vehicles. .As stated earlier, the :a~nk . counter-cl:.1.imed in the sum of shs.9,676 1 194/45 · under Order 35 of the CPC. 6. I app_lie<l for lea·ve todefend myself against· the Counto:i;:_:-clsim.as stipulated in Order 35 of the CPC. J.i:'.~r reasons for ap::_:,l_ying for le(.'.\V8 to defend were ess.entially those as. stated in psre 4 h~reinabove. ·... I.~- g,iv~n le2.vo to defendj,,I would he,•~ rnis0d ,,, the def.once on the folJ!"ovving issues: (~-) _;., ~VhcthGr i.t ·W~S propG~ 1.~r the Bank ' to dttach my property which had not been mortgaged to the Banlc • .,. . lb) . \/ho-ther. the Bank W2.S right to fore close r.-· ', I 'm1.y.":;1roperty b~fore the· repaynient .a:~-te Edd be come dµe. 0 ( ~)· ~1.hcd;ho"r· the Bank· .h.as powers to·. a ttc.~ch any ::,Jroperty ·of.. a customer which is ~·- not se CUI'E3 d · on the _loano 7. In the :-ru.µ.ng . for the soid ' . . '.:lpplica:tion for leave .: · to defe'nri 1 . the -~rial Resident Ma~i~trute dismissed the appl.ic~tiqn with costs.. The ·court insisted that. t!10.re w~s . !::O trinble · issue worth allowing me to defend against the·· cSunter-claim. -2nd o:rdered me ·to· -iJ3J the J?CI~ the said shs. 9, 6.76, 194/45e 8-~ Naturc1lly,_ I wa~;_dissatisficd with the ruling. J,: instructed my former advocnte. to appe,.~1 to . the Hi 0 h Court,. The' s ..,,id ad~ocate 9 the lcsrned m:r; :·}'lwcrigole 9 informed me _that he had filed the appeal· on 5..--2.-1997,., He. evon served mo with the copy ,of the r::.1em_o of appc o.l which shovl/0 d thct my appc:;;11' w.:;,s .no.8/97 it th.J . High Court 9 L:ibe::ya. • < • ., I o.ttach a pho~o-copy of the said ElOio.10 of appep,1 YJiliql). is mark$d C BS part of this 2,ffidavi t. : •<t,-·The_._ ..c9:.;:>Y of .. the· ruling is ti'i~.tke d D., -iill to form part of t.:.2i~ af:ti._·-a.avit~e· • .: ·> l~-:-~ I . '.' . ~- . ... "./4 / - - 4 9. So, frm:1 5. 2,1997 I hew been of the iii1})r8 ssi on that m:ir a:)lJG3lq~s pending to be hea_rd 2t the ., . High Court. My advocate has been te,lline me that the a:,;ipeal was yat,·to be fixed for hec:iring every-tirn.e I enquired_ frol:1 him about the 11rogre ss of tho :,p}jG al. lo.· Ho·wewr~ wh~n r: 'fou,.nd. th.;::it the appeal ·wc.s r~ther . ·. .J . . , . . -,dragging o·h for too 101,1g, I decided· to c;o straight to the ci vii Re_gis·t;;y of ;the Hi.gh· C~urt ori.-'.18/8/1999 to enq1.,1.ire 1~bout the progress of the _ce.se: . ·A JY?.f3 I 'deeply·. a·sto~ . . sh.Gd/to ,be t'old. -~he't there is n6 pendi11g appe, a.l in ~ t;'le · H:i.gll Court in vihi ch I am the nppo ..\12.rit,. ._I was fu~ther told tllc1t oven the so-callG.d, Cirvil ,Appeel ):{o;.8/97. _as · shown ,-in,\he , purportc memo of .Appec..1 ..is a fake one. The !Ugh , , Court rcDistry shows· thc:t • (D) . Civil Appor:l No.8/97 is bf diffc±"ent, parties -:.ltogether • . 11,. In the circwnstance s, I cirn likely to los_e my rights for no tu.stakes · of my O\V11.. Hence. this application . . in wriich I e.ra praying for the foll.owing relie·fs: (a) The High Court r<Jvise th!.;! proceedings 2,:i1.d· ruling.in tho District Coui""t of l.~bc ya Civil Case_ Ifo. 92/94. , · , . . . (b) Quash the said District Court's rulling a.::.ted 9.,1.97 ·o.nd s9t aside th8 61~d.ors thereto. . ' . (cJ I be given leave to defend mysolf sgetn~t the B~nkt s comjter-•l.g.i:1n::.of s.::1~.9., 676, 194/'45. (d) The Civil Case )To~':9~/1994 proceed. to llenring. an_d finzi.i ·dct,r..~ination. ~: ... . . 12. I verify thc.t what has been stated i1'. l,it:r2.s ·t, and, . \ 11 above ore obtained . from .. information . . su.;n)li.ed - ~ -~ oy my present mfiYoo,:d;e, ~.Ir. 1..T;1kur.1bp. l]he..J-.est of the pa.ras afe -true ,>to the _bo s't of my own . pc rsonal knowle dgo •-'' The affidavit 7 lJ,:rti cularly pa~agraphs I- t.o 8 v chronicle_s · . ' \ st.:.:ges through which the application for leave to dcfo,11:9-'..1)1:fS)?ed .. 5 The said application for leave was. dis;iri.s,sed. . "" . svve2rs in paragraph 8. th:Jt the dismissal of his a}Jplici:ition' a 0 c-;rieved him, so he inst,r_uctedhisr~\c1vocate, Mr. rJv'iangole,·to institute an appesl before this Court .. ·- To his,. astoshm0nt Ii:Ir. L'.wnngole did not do w;:1r:;t he was instructed 'to do., ~Chat it was on 18th August., 1999, when he di scovero d that the aripo al had not boen inst.i tuted after Gll. Unless, th0:re fore, this 2.);1rli cation is allov@d he will lose his rights • .., -The counter ·2ffid::vi t by which tho respondent b8SO s her ,O}Jposi tion to the c.Jplicc:tion is fstnlly d~fective as it does not' cohform to the re 1uirem~nts of Qrder XIX rule 2 of the Civil Procedure_.. Code.. It is de fe ctiX,B be cause even th@ueh it • ,:• · is partly based on tho cle:ponent' s belief 1 the grounds for such :, . beliefs are not_ disclosed. Mr. Mlru.mbe.,-- le,?rncd counsel for the applicCl:nt, h;.~s filed ,•. . ._.,. ·wrttten subi:l'iissions which are made. up of two sentence 7 __ ex,ept for the . ope:nirtg address nnd concluding words. - . ,Le crnod_ c_ounse 1 says ::this:-· . !?~ ~. The :;__~;; :-:'ifbiJ,s for this _2l)l)li cati _?:P. ure· a.i indi cG.'torct in tl-ie affidavit by. the appli cc,nt which SUl)lJOrts the Chamber S-µnimons. • I hw11bly pray th2t You:r-r Lordship r~gard what ever'·•·.li,,1S · been written in tne affid.~vi t as part of t.his written,' subrnissi .. on .... 11 . . . Mr. Mwakilsso., lee,rned counsel for the respondent, has not . lJoGn exhaustive e·i thcr. In essence· he submits thnt it is clear . from the counter affid.2,vit that the_.Eiecision of tho District ·.·. Court wa~ not appc.llabie, so that the c,,llegstion by the applicant th2.t he filed a· me1~10r::~ndlli:-t of appeal is not true for i t has not been countered by tho Gpplicant' s edvo.cote who is 2.lloged to have <lrawn the ~aid, mcmorr:indu.:i:1. of nppeP.l. , Like Itlr. L'Ikwnbe, Er.Mwakilasa J - 6 c.lso invites this Court to oonsider tho c.ounter affidavit as p_art of his submissions • .As the ·chamb0r sv.umons. vividly shows this appli c::::ti on _s_e~ks • , • I. '. four iriterelated reliefs. Of course~ by its very n8 ture ., the ;.-~- .'. • ..,,1. . . success'of the S:pplication mu~h depends on the first roJief.~_ For should it' fail, t"hen the ro st of the application will s.lso ~X:}J,mble. . •' . . i·. · Whatr then, n,ust be done in ardor that the ap 1)1\ ca.t,i_on may . . ' . ~ su~eeed.. The answer· resides in tho jjaw of Limitation . Act,. .Np.IO .. . ' , ,. of 1971. In Order for an appli~.ation such ns this one to suq,.reed the re.qu.irem~nts ~i sc cti?.n 14(1) of the Law of Limi t:::lti on Act must,.~ met. It pro,.iid.0~ thns:..:.. .. :·f'l4(1) i{otwithstanding the provisi~ns of this .Act, tho court may, _for.reasonable.or ~uffi cicnt cause, extend· the period of limitation for. the institution ,of an ap110::il or applic8tionr other than Qn_application for exe.cuti on of a de croe .... ;(,. . . } . 1 As ·b y law pr.oviclcd the• applicant must show thnt ho was prevented by "sufficient or rco.s.one1ble cause ' 1 to net within the time prescribed by le.wo ... The expressions ::sufficient cause" or reasonable. ci3µse" have ... not been defined • . No.do11bt :_these e:ipre.ssions are as wiie as they ore comprehensive· in thoir ineaning. 'It i1my be said th.:;i:; -in their nr,turc3l meaning they uovor a si tua~i Q:Q., which is beyond· the control of the party who sc:_::ks to justify his c1elay. ";ccordinc. tq_ the lo8rned authors of 1\-:d. trG~ Cm:unentarios "on the Law q_f_Lj.i:,li tation, 4th Edition at pc.1go 9'.) ~- 11 ..... The t9st, whether or not a cause, is t sufficient, is to see whether it is a · bona fide cr-iuse 9 · inasmµ.ch <1s nothi.ng sho.11 0 -·'ite ta):{:on to be done. bona fid~ .. or .in good f ai'th which is not done vvi th due -o~re and 7 - attenti bn:~' Subject e to t.l,J.eabove. test, the . words 11Buffi . cient : c,,c, use •=.·.· a• should 0 re cm:irve li.boral construction so as to ·•' _ advance sul)st~mtial justice• ·. ·when no-• 'ne~·ii!gence ~~~ inaction nor want of" bOhE · fides is imput3ble to a party for ,the __ delay in filing an appeal it would const'i t-v.tc 8 SUffj_ Ci Cllt ·- C8:Use ~ II<) O ·~ ~ :. The Indian scholars were making a. ,co1Jun2ntary on sec·tion 5(1) of the Indian Law of Limi tatioh .t:1ct ·wh±ch is in 12.ari' mate:i::~,.:3~ with section 14(1) .o;f .our :U-.:'.W of Li,mitation flct. · 'T~e· ccn~n::entcry is, there fore, rel~varit to our circums-te,11;,ce s. .i1pply:i,ng . _the principle that is embod{~.-1 in -tho Indiqn jl,1-rispr;o.ence, the question is . -. :t · ·. ·... _,,•.--1_~ vvhe ther the appli c~mt passes the above test which I 11ropose to apply hero! This can be done if the .. G:ppli:qant ,qan show that he ' hc.s accounted for tho · time of the -delay-; . ,.and this must be done strictly.· He mu 9 t -:;3how--th{:lt he i.s not guilty of l2chos or noc;ligence. 1lccording tb the affidavital· evidence which SU}/;)Orts the .• 8Jplication.:th!9 wholo del3y is blamed on Mr .. l\~wangolG, learned counsel~ - who it i.s ;.::d.lcc;Gd 1 neglected to file the appeal in time •. If· that was the case then the ap:.)li cnnt. was re quired to have lilra rD:wangole testify :rnt3:F.1rding, whGther ,indeed he h2,d instructions to institute In any case.,. proof was re quired for the fc:ct that the ~ppli cant retained Mr.. Liwangole 'to act for him. There is· no: such proof. Even if r.l[r. · Evvangole was instructed, it .. . -. is now trite law in our country :that counsel's negliccnce doeo not constitute "sufficient cause or reasonable causs :r for any delay. It follov11s the.t the. delay of 0"1.rer two years is :not only '• ' ' . . inexplicably . . ino_rdin2.·te : . 1 it . -~. W<;lS not co.used by· sufficient or . .-., 'I•,. reasonable cause• 'i,s a :··· ",. re sul.t the first prayer vvould fail; '· with it go the ot'her three pi-ayers. • ••.• /8 , - -- 8 Let me ·now saJ _c. v10rd or ·two 2bout 11 suhmissions• 1 by learned counse 1. Seriously tl::.eirs were· not su,b:inissions;" . ... .. they ·.vcre prayers. ~ 1,s I had occasion to so.y i_n another c-as.e,, • and I fcol c1isad.vantaged . I to p.ave to q1:1ote -from rny own judghiont, Jf_ul~a vLW-~lJ'~1t}--i:g Officer, /_!99§7 T. LeR. 320 at J)~ges 322 cmd 323i":._· As re:)-~rcls the, fj_rst ground of appeal when this SJ}poal was calls d for hearing the parties' were directed to make formal writteri subi0:1-issions.·,-: I;t would appear th2,t Ur. Byabushn? on _adv'ocate based in.'.musom8f was engage a. by the., appel1a'n\ to prepare tho .writt~n subnissicms for the ap:pe1!Lant.. He did' so i::.r19- filed ,a docu,wnt with· five , ' senterite s, the ope r!iti ve p 3rt 'of -·whi oh re 2.d. .:;'! thus; .. 't;:a:r it,, JJlc~sa .your Lordship. In ocldi tion to my. crounds of appe2,l I wish to submit that the --~--:---.::._.::..:...le~uned T~~inl .Be'.H.i.dent i'!c.gistr·a·t:;e +rtisconstrued_ s. 19(1) uf the L;•11aJ. Gover111~1cnt (Electi.:ms) J;~t 1 1979" l~o~: 4 ·sincG thit. s~ction relates to a. vqtcr;. · and not a. pe titi oner like .myself. _ ""; petition::::r is governed by the :provisions quote cl L1 r:.w first ground of -appeal •• ,. 1 :tBarned counsel who drew the a:ppellc.nt~ s sub- missions .did not care to m:.'lke n correct ci tGtion of ,the :1ct,,_ nor did he find it necess:::ry to e l~bor3te on the alleged . ,· rri sconst:r.na.ctaon of s.~ 19(a) although he should hwv8 reali_se,d ,the.t his generslis8tion is pregnant ,'Ni th serious c.spersion _on the prol:'ossional cap?.bili ty of the - lof',rnocl Tr-1.al iYio.gistrc.te,. I find. it 1.L'11lecesssry to admonish lc,"1:;.~nod counsel but ho should realise the,t what he drcv; for his client c.re not submissions Qt1 all. Submi ssi o:ns. r11.ust contain reasons and bases for legal ahd f~ctu.81 · proposi ti.boo~ which arf3 put f orv1,'.rd by learned· counse,J.. ·as of.ficers of the court. T11 these • o.trcwnst:.:ncc:is the appellnµt has n~t fi,lcd o.riy written •• ,/9 I. • I 9 submissi 011S i?.S re quired by the Courto 11 With that said 9 the application is dismissed with costs. Ruling to be delivered by the District Registrnr on 6th i:1pril 1 2001. Ju1)G-E 4/ii./2001 Ruling deli vcrod th.is 12th day of i'ipril 2001 in tho presence of i'!.ir. Mkur,1be lenrnod counsel for the :.::1pplicants encl Eir. Mwakilasa, lu2rned counsel for the respondent. sgd: E.G. Mzuna i\g. DERICT REGISTIL1R 12/4/2001 of . the ; origincl Ruling •