Sadi Irahim vs Melembuki Kitasho (Civil Application No. 10 (b) of 2011) [2014] TZCA 2303 (27 February 2014)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AJARUSHA CIVIL AP;PLICATION NO. 10 (b) OF 2011 SADI IBRAHIM ••••••.••••.•••..•••...••••.••••••• 1••·····································APPLICANT VERSUS MELEMBUKI KITASHO ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT (Application fro extension of time within which to apply for revision of decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha) MANDIA. l. A.: (Msoffe. J.) dated the 10 th day of November, 2000 in Misc .Civil Application No.160 of 1999 RULING By Notice of Motion lodged in this Court on 2 nd December, 2011, the applicant has applied for extension of time within which to apply for revision in respect of Civil Application No. 160 of 1999 determined in the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. The Notice of Motion is supported by the affidavit of Sadi Ibrahim affirmed on 1 st December, 2011. The applicant is represented by Ms. Christina Kimale, learned advocate, while the respondent is represented by Mr. Nelson Merinyo, learned advocate. The respondent has lodged a Notice of Preliminary Objection against the application in which he is arguing that the affidavit in support of the

Notice of Motion is defective because of the defect in the jurat. Mr. Merinyo therefore prayed that the application be struck out with costs. Ms. Christina Kimale on her part conceded to the preliminary objection but prayed that the applicant be spared costs of the application for the reason that the applicant has made several appearances in this Court without the benefit of counsel and that this is the first time he is engaging counsel. Mr. Nelson Merinyo, on the other hand agreed that the applicant has made several appearances in this Court without the benefit of counsel where he was spared payment of costs, but he informed the Court that in the previous appearances respective Justices of this Court gave directions to the applicant but he ignored the court directives, hence the repeated appearances. Ms. Christina Kimale then left the decision on costs to the Court. Since both counsel agree that the application is incompetent as aforementioned, the same is struck out. I also take note of the fact that both counsel agree that the applicant has made several appearances in this Court on the same subject matter, and in each instance his application was found to be defective. The Court issued directions several times which the applicant did not carry out, but he was spared costs because he was 2

unrepresented. Things went to such an extent that in ARS Civil Application No. 11 of 2001, which was also an application for extension of time within which to apply for revision like the present one, His Lordship Luanda, J.A made the following comment:- " The lax attitude to the Court orders should come to an end To accede to the request of Sadi Ibrahim is to encourage laxity. " It is the same Sadi Ibrahim to whom the above comment was directed who is now praying that he be spared costs because he was unrepresented in the previous proceedings. If he has been shown to have a cavalier attitude to appearances in court it is appropriate that the principle that costs follow the event should apply to him. The respondent is granted costs of this application. DATED at ARUSHA this 2ih day of February, 2014. I certify that ur W. S. MANDIA JUSTICE OF APPEAL i. 3