19970414 TZHC Dar es Salaam

ir. \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ~ ~ DARMES r SALAAM. ,_. CIVIL APPEAl-,. NO.• 3 OF 1996' YUSUF SHABAN! MZIMBA•••••••••••APPELLANT · VERSUS TANGANYIKA GEZAULOLE WOODWORK SHOP •. o • • • • o • • • • • • • , • • .,RESPONDENT -·------------- The applicant has filed a chamber application in t~rms of Section 5 (1) (') of the AJAet, 1979;. R 43 (a) and 46 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal ;. Rules 1979, seeking for leave to appeal to the &tirt of ~ppeaJ. against the . ,~ BnJ.~rig of IW.e~ . PRt-1,.. ~ ~~ juri~~:c.~ The respondent in couse of hearing the application has raised some· • I . preliminary objections on various fronts. First that the application is d~f~c~iv~ for ~ant of prover h e ~ ~ date bi. filing,. that it,is not preceded by a proper form cf notice of appeal as req~ired by_law; that the intended appeal has n'l' ~liance of ~W)-0ess, that the~pp~:i..oation is also ~'e-etiu.Q £or l,.2.c.k of signature of the drawer.· He1'lce he pray~ that the application be dismissed with costs as per Rule 1982 CA Rules) · For the applicant Capt Nsance had this tc say. That t~y filed their • -51,~oOl'ti.On oxi. 2/8/% ~ h.::,.d. .a ~ i p t ~ ... prc,v.Q i.t. .lie ccnt-0nd.ed that it was up to the court to file in the appropriate ,date. On lack of prcper heading he said it was a minor defect not fatal at all. That the application was supposed to be similar tc that on form B and not now for woid. That . they ~ed a durable paper, fullscape as required by the law. On whether . ., the appeal will succeed or not that was up to the c0urt of Appeal·to datermine. ~n the lack of signature of the drawr, they concede the application has no s.ig~.e .~t they aocept it was drawn out by their firm. I have had time to seriew the application before me. I think it is not disputed that the application filed in this ccurt is unsigned by the drawer.· How it is entertained by our registry beats my Imagiration. I think we ought to be more serious and at all times to 1bring to the notice of thise I ccncerned such shortcomings~ The respondent was entitled in my view to question the authenticity of\.such adocurnent. On the other defeets cited by the respondent those could have been considered along with the main ground behind the intended appeal. In other words this court would have considered .. the defects in the right of the fact whether there was merit in the appeal worthry of consideration• Having read the Ruling by Kileo, PRM (Ext. Jurisdiction) I cannot fault the decision. The application filed is fraught with defects which in my view indicate lark of seniousness and diligence on the applicant's counsel. I am not persuaded by the applicants argument and r· uphold the preliminary I objections and dismis the application. I_ r. • Jf. . cP~).,Jh1~l · Delivered before A.Go Bubeshi,, Maira for Applicant/Respondent JUDGE absent. · 14/4/~