20010726 TZHC Dar es Salaam

lN THE HIGH cou:i:::T OF T.l.NZl..NIA AT DAR. ES SAL/;./-J/J.. PC .crv .APPEAL.rm •. 103 OF 2000 ZA.INABU KONDO • •••••••• • ••••••.•• 1:.PPELLANT VERSUS H.f-a.1~ISI ALLY NGUL/i.NG~lA • ......... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. LUJJ-JDA, J • The ~ppel !.:mt in :this s:\ppe~l one ZI..]]n.Bu KONDO is appe:::tling ::ig,'¾inst tbe judgment of' tbe Temeke District Court (Mrs Nzot~- - •• I • DH) which RI.W33c~D: the fin.ding o:f I\igqmboni Primqry Court. The Kig::imboni ?rim~ry Court .decl~red the Appelbint the winner of ~ civil suit involvit1g tbe Appell.9nt ~nd H.!J·iISI ALLY NGULANGW~ ~e_re ini:tfter referred ::is- the _n.espondet'J.t) Th.e dispute touchs·on - ~ piece of i~nd. The historic::il b~c~ground o:f m~tte:-:- giving ~ise to this dispute is as f'o l lows:- The Appel lint filed l=i Ell.lit l'.lLrn1ber 52/9•7 ::\ t Kigqmboni ::?rim~ry Court qg:-,.inc:.t th~ Respondent. She w~s sucessful. The.Respondent w~s dissatisfie6/ne ~ppe~led to Temeke District Court,: The Temeke District Co!1rt uph.eld the lower court judgment. Diss::ttisfied, the Respondent R.ppeqled to this ' court. This court (Justice K:::ilegey.q) discovered l"tn error on tb:e record n,qmely jl!dgmeot of' the I(ig:--,.mboni I'rimqry Court wqs not Written in R.ccordR.nce with tee _provisions of' Governmerl't Notice ,. r, • (GN) ·number .2 of' 198-8 in thl'l.t the triql primR.ry court m~gistrR.tt3 (Mr. HqmR.d H~ss~ni) who is ref'e1..red to qs ~ member by the ,qbove \1.''\med GN 2/1988 summed up the CPiSG to his collel"tgue members. Justice I-;::tlegey,q decl,qred the proceed-~.nGs .q nullity ::md ordered retri.q 1. The c.qse wqs ~ssign0d to 1,ss J.M. Jun1bo ~ pri¼l:.iry Court Hqgistrtlte of course with .q not-J set of' R.Ssessors. ~fu3n the c~se cqme ~ef'ore Ms. J .N. Jumbe - Prim::try Court M"l_gistrl'lte, the Appel\~~nt informed ·:;lie court thi:tt she b:c:i.d sGrved the Respondent tLrou,:;:h 1'::'\jir,1 Ilews- Pl!lper ~nd 2 Her pr:=tyer W.qs grAnted. The C::\Se proceeded exp:trte ~nd judgment wqs entered in her f'qvour. Uben the Respondent c.qme • to know th.is develop'!len~, through the service· of Mr. Rwqbut::\Z!'-1 ~ le;:irned eo:nsel., filed .qn qppeql in .the Temeke District Court ch.qllenging the m;:;inner of subtitutsd servi.ce effected inter ::tli;:\ in th:=it i t w.qs not str:=1ted whethor qJ.l efforts to serve the Respondent t-iqs unsuccess:fulp hence publ:i..c:::ttion in the news p::tper. This contrqvenes s.19 of the Prim.qry Court Civil Procedure Rules 1964 vide GN, Jl0/64. 0 The Temeke District ourt -<1llowed the .qppeAl pointing cut th~t there ·is no order isrmed for substituted service. · Th~t,_ the :Jistrict Court concluded, contr;:,vences Rule 19 of' the Primr-1ry Courts Civil Procodure R.ul0s 1964, It decl::tred the proceedinc;s 9.nul_li ty .qnd ordered retrir1l. Dis.ctsti:fied with thq t finding 9 hence the .qppe.ql. In her ~emo~qndum of .qppe~l the App0llqut rqised four ground. I reproduce then verb~tim for eA.se ref'erence:- 1• Ni kw:::mb"l ~!==11:J::tkf.lm:"\ yq Wil:"\y;:;. imekose:=t kusikiliz,q ruf'.q::i Y.ct 1-tqmisi Alli Ngul.qngwq W.<1kflti kesi iiish~sikilizw~ tqyqri MqhP.kqmq y.q MwAnzo Kigi:tmboni mpqkq MAh--=tkil.mq Kuu n.ct :fiqmisi Ally h::tlcuwez,q kuf'u.qtili;:i ntqdqi h.qyb kwq m;:,ikusudi 11heshimiwq ui:.qmuzi wa J"lji Kr-t lege.fA (Sic) n:t uw-1muzi t-iq Hq1cimu M-=th:=t"kFtml'l YI'\ Mw::tnzo. 2• KwFln.i bA.::\d::t yq kesi hiyo ku:fi :dsbwq M,qbqkq,n1=1 yq Mt-1qnzo :Iigi:tmboni m'\misi 1.. lly Nr_,--ul::i.ngw"I h::tkuwez::t kuhudhuriq M::ilHkA.m:=t l:mq m:"lkusudi tu b;-,li yeye An:'lijuFl kesi hiyo n.q HAkimu wq M:::ih~_1<.:-'\m~-t y~ Mwqnzo ::i li to,fl (Sic) Amri y.q kl1toq ti:\ng~zo n:t nili:f::inyi:\ :hivyo 11-fueshimiw::t T::ing:-=tzo l::ingu. J. Kwqni kesi biyo yq !'1lq1_,q°k~'"::\ y~-:\ Nwqnzo b"l1d-9 yq kutolewq u1v~muzi mp1k?. siku JO zi~etolewq nq l<wish::t h;::ikutokeq huyo Hq:,;1ird. /.1.lly 1Tgulqngv1t-l kuomb.q ruf-"lr.\ mp:.i_k.q uk:=tf':\nyikq u tclnlez,qji kubo>nolewrt 1rnq nyumb:''l yq H.qmisi Alli Ngul.qng-wq k\i1q ql!lr'.t y.q Hqb::tk::r:n:=t i l i eneo 1::rngu hilo l.q sh;·mb~ nik1.bidbj_·-.1 e nP. nilik'lbidhiW;:\ 3 4• Hivyo Nbeshimiw=t tfa;.1.qkq;;1q y.qko i tqpi ti:i kumbukumbu zote zi::rngu. kq:.V't m,qb~kqm::i Yr-t mwqnzo ilivyotekelez.q uwqmuzi uliyonif'.qnyq nimiliki sehemu, yqngu nq Mkuu Wl'l ::Ti1'::1y;;\ Temeke .qmetekelez~ kwq qmri y.q MAh~~qmA. Let me st.::trt with the first ground. The Appell.::tnt is sq·ying t11e m":ltter Wqs he:=:trd qnd :finqlJ.y determined stqrting from Kigq~boni Prim.qry Court to ~-figh Court vide Justice ~legeyqt s judgment. In otherwords sh0 s,::,.ys the mA.tter is res judicJ'\t.a, With due respect to the Appellqnt tbe mqtter \\!:::ts not f'inf\lly Rbdjucqted. Justice Kqlegey~ ordered retriql becquse of .q _ er~or . / funw:unen.tql/01· t1on compl1.qnce with GN 2 1988. Retri.ql me~ns to stqrt ~fresh. So this ground n~s □c leg to st~nd • .,\s to t1ie second ground tho l:..:ppelJ.,=mt is s,a.ying pu'!::>licl'!tion of' summons in the Mlljirq News p,:i,per \,l:'ls correct qs the Respondent tv"1S ~HJA.rG of' the c::tse. It is trt.1G t!1,:.;t tbe Respondent w~s q;,1:u~e of the c::i.se, but :t .::1m A.fr;'lid whether he w::is ;=twrtre o:f the h3~ring dqte. lnd in f~ct this is .q bone of' contention in this .<:tppeql. It is Mi:-. ·Rw:=tbut,qz::i. 1 s contention in the District Courtt Mr Rw'lbut,qz,q did not .qppe,qr in this court thought he wqs ;:iw,qre of' tbo heqring df'tte, tb~t the course tq::ing by the Appell"'!.nt in puhlishing the summons in Mq_jirq News P,qper W"lS not proper, It offends Rule 19 of ~he Primqry Courts Procedure Rules, 1964. The Rule provides. 19(1) subject to the provisions of sub-rule(2) .q summons or ~ny other document requirod to be served under these r-ulGs sh,qll be served oh the de:fenr.~::int p0rsonAlly or if' he h!1s r-rn 1,-sent ::t.utborizod to ~ccept oGrvice on such qgent. ( 2) Where the court is O:'¼ti~~-e~,.t ;r,erson:=tll service oqnnot be effected or cqmwt l~~:fected without summons or documar.,t be s2-rved either by post or by lG:::iving it with ~n -"\dul t :;1:=ilc momber of' the d0f'endqnt c~~ w.i.tb. coinc n:;ult :ll"lle serv:=tnt :r.esiding with bi8, or his emi:lc::,rer by i::tf'f'ixing ::t. copy of the summon~ or document on so~e conspicuous p~rt of the lqst known residence ot' the defendqnt 1=tnd qs other copy tJ: erco:f on t:,e court notice boqrd. . My undarst:-:tnding of sub-rule 1 of' Rule 19 is this. As q goner.ql rule personql service sho:·ild all-1"1.ys be e:ffected upon t.he defend~nt either· to ;.1·i..me,eJ.f' or Suh-rule (2) of Rule 19 is qn excce:pti,'.)~ to sub - rule 1 ·to that 0th.er modes of' service w:1ich ::n:•0 not p•.3rson:::il m:::iy be ef':f'ected but subject to court ,s."l.tisf'1ction tb;=i.t personl'll service c:::innot be e:ff,ected or c.qnnot be effected without undue del~y er expensos. In the instnnt c.qse service wqs effected by wqy of pu"blic;'ltion in M:=i.jir.q News Pq:t-:,er. Thoug.b this is not ::tmong the 1:10des enumer:=i.ted .qbove but tbis mode .hqs been l'¼dl¼pted~ used for ~ quite q consider;;bl~i,.Je qna now it h.qs flourish :=i.s one if the ~~ys of effecting service. Ls it does no h~rm t0 the ~dmini1:;,;;r,1tion of justice, I Am of t.ho viaw thqt the prA.ctice 3houlf continue to be usod. :-hving sqid so let us proceed. The rocord shows very clsqrly thJ:tt there is no ;:ipplic;:d:;ion to 0f'f'ect service by why o:f publicqtion in M.qjir.q Hews Pnpers. Inc1eed no evidence or expl~n--=ttion w.qs o:f:fered ::i.s to t-1he.t?.ier person:=tl service w;:is not po:::si"ble to be ef':fected 9 hence t;1.e qpplicqtinn. More so there is 1~ott1ing en record to indic.::ite whether tbe court w;:is s:ci ti::>f'ied !tii th the r~qsons • So in r-tbscnc0 of' -<¼t'ly expi~rt"l tion th~ substituted s~rvica effected Hqs not properly m~de. As reg,'ard to the third ground the Appell.qnt is s.qying this r1ppeql is time b:=trred in th.qt thirty d:1.ys h.qd el!'ipsod long time qgo when he ~pp2~Jed to the District Court. I quite qgree on this. But the Respondent sought ;:.,,nd obt.qined laqve to r1p::-·8~l out of' time vidc Hisc.Civ.C~so. (sic) No, 8/99 filed in Temeka District Court. Fin"llly is the fourth ground. I h::ive gone· through the As the execution ic bqso::l on ~l i'.i.leg~l pre.,.nises, t!:;.0 exec'...,tion rec:-Jrd., I ;:im sqtisfied thqt tt10 !:..ppollr-tnt's grounds of !!ippeql / .qre wi tbout mcri ts. c.:=tnnot st:;,.n.d. In the finql ql~ysis tbc qppeql is d~~missed with costs. For ;::ivoidqnce of' doubt the ri3cision of th•1 District Court is h0reby upheld. Order ~ccordingly~ .ni of' the Appell::rnt Judg.1.100.t rer-\d over is the pres0ncorEJ8 Fl.bsence in · · of the· Respondent.