Arusha Blooms Limited (Under Receivership) and Another vs Tib Development Bank Limited and Others (Misc. Civil Application No 5920 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 3002 (5 June 2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB-REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO 5920 OF 2026 ( Aris ing f rom t he R uling o f t his Court i n M isc. Civil App l. No. 222 o f 2023 ) ARUSHA BLOOMS LIMITED ( Under R eceivership ) …………. 1 ST APPLICANT FELIX MREMA………………………………………………………. 2 ND APPLICANT VERSUS TIB DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED………………………… 1 ST RESPONDENT DANIEL WELWEL ( Joint R eceiver a nd M anager o f Arusha Bloom s Lim ited ) …………………………………… 2 ND DEFENDANT VINTAN MBIRO, ( Joint R eceiver a nd M anager o f Arusha Bloom s Lim ited ) …………………………………… 3 RD RESPONDENT RULING May 25 th , 2026 June 5 th , 2026 Morris, J The Applicant moved this Court by a Chamber Summons under Sections 105 and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code , Cap 33 R.E. 2023 ( the CPC ) seeking rectification of the ruling date in Misc. Civil Application No. 222 of 2023 to read 30 th November 2023 instead of 15 th November 2023. The application was supported by the affidavit of Advocate Josepha D. Tewa . T he Respondent was represented by Ms. Brina Mwakyoma, learned State Attorney.

2 The record of this matter reveals a fairly protracted dispute between the parties dating back to 2018 . It involv es several proceedings before th is Court ; the arbitral tribunals ; and the Court of Appeal. Following the striking out of Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2022, the Applicants instituted Misc. Civil Application No. 222 of 2023 seeking extension of time to lodge a notice of appeal. The application was heard and determined by Hon. Pomo, J. However, His Lordship Pomo, J. was subsequently transferred to another working station before deliver y of the ruling thereof . Nonetheless, o n 30 th November , 2023 t he ruling was pronounced by Hon. S.B. Fimbo, Deputy Registrar . The application for extension of time was accordingly granted. According to the Applicants, although a copy of the ruling uploaded on TANZLII bore the date of 15 th November 2023 and reflected appearance of the persons new/ unknown to the proceedings ; the court record, drawn order, and subsequent proceedings consistently showed that the ruling was delivered on 30 th November 2023 in the presence of the correct parties’ advocates. Based on the foregoing inconsistencies, t he Applicants contended that, under Order XX Rule 3 of the CPC , the operative date of a ruling is the date of its pronouncement in open court and not the date on which it

3 was signed. They further argued that Hon. Pomo, J. had already been transferred by the time the ruling was delivered, making 30 th November 2023 the proper ruling date. The Respondent opposed the application through their counter affidavit. They maintain ed that , the ruling was delivered on 15 th , November 2023 and that 30 th November , 2023 merely related to the drawn order. It was further argued that the presence of unfamiliar names in the ruling did not invalidate the stated date and that the Applicants had failed to annex proceedings proving that the ruling was delivered on 30 th November 2023. The Respondent therefore urged the Court to retain the ruling date as 15 th November 2023 and ; if necessary, rectify only the drawn order to correspond with that date. The foregoing contention by the Respondents notwithstanding, when the partied appeared for hearing on 25 th May 2026; the Application was supported by the opponents. That is, the Respondents recorded no objection to the prayers therein howsoever. In particular, the learned State Attorney submitted that; “ the respondents are conceding to the application with no order as to costs ”.

4 Having considered the record and the submissions of the parties, I am of the settled view that the determination of this application turns on two issues, namely: (i) Whether the ruling in Misc. Civil Application No. 222 of 2023 was pronounced on 15 th November 2023 or 30 November 2023; and (ii) Whether the date 15 th November 2023 appearing on the ruling is a clerical error or accidental slip capable of rectification under Section 106 of the CPC . Upon examining the record, I find considerable support for the Applicants ’ contention that the ruling was pronounced on 30 th November 2023. The proceedings reveal that , after the appearance of the parties on 22 nd September 2023, when the matter was scheduled for ruling, there is no record showing that the case was called or that the parties appeared on 15 th November 2023. Conversely, the proceedings clearly indicate that on 30 th November 2023 , the parties appeared before Hon. S.B. Fimbo, DR, where Advocate Josepha Tewa appeared for the Applicants and held brief for Advocate Suzan Michael for the Respondents . T he ruling was accordingly delivered.

5 Further, the drawn order and the subsequent proceedings consistently reflect 30 th November 2023 as the date on which the ruling was pronounced. The significance of this date is reinforced by the fact that the Applicants thereafter acted upon the ruling by lodging their notice of appeal within the period granted by the Court. I therefore find no evidential basis in the court record to conclude that the ruling was pronounced on 15 th November 2023. Rather, the available record points to 30 th November 2023 as the date of pronouncement. The first issue is accordingly determined. Having found that the ruling was pronounced on 30 th November 2023, the next question is whether 15 th November 2023 appearing on the ruling amounts to a clerical error or accidental slip. Section 106 of the C PC empowers the Court to correct clerical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slips or omissions at any time.The scope of this provision has been clarified by the Court of Appeal in the case of Victor W. Meena & Another v . Arusha Technical College , Civil Appeal N o. 515 of 2020 [2024] TZCA 111 (21 February 2024) . Therein, the clerical error was described as a minor mistake or inadvertence in recording or copying

6 matters into the court record, rather than an error arising from judicial reasoning or determination. The Court further reaffirmed its earlier holding in Jewels and Antiques (T) Ltd v . National Shipping Agencies Co . Ltd . [1994] TLR 107 in that the slip rule is intended to rectify clerical mistakes and accidental omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders. It follows, therefore, that while this Court is vested with the power to correct such errors, the correction must not alter the substance of the decision or prejudice the rights of the parties. In the present case, the discrepancy between the signing date and the pronouncement date appears to have arisen from an inadvertent administrative error rather than from any judicial determination. The record demonstrates that , although the ruling may have been signed on 15 th November 2023, it was in fact pronounced on 30 th November 2023 after the transfer of Hon. Pomo, J. Hence, c orrecting the date would neither alter the substance of the ruling nor affect the rights of the parties howsoever . It would merely bring the ruling into conformity with the proceedings, the drawn order, and the actual date of its pronouncement.

7 I therefore find that the date of 15 th November 2023 appearing on the ruling constitutes an accidental slip or clerical error amenable to correction under Section 106 of the C PC . In the event, I find merit in the application and hereby grant the same. Accordingly, the date appearing on the ruling in Misc. Civil Application No. 222 of 2023 is rectified from 15 th November 2023 to 30 th November 2023 , as being the date on which the ruling thereof was pronounced by this Court . The court record shall stand amended accordingly . Given the circumstances of this case, and being mindful that the error was not occasioned by either party to these proceedings; I enter no order for costs. It is so ordered. C.K.K. Morris Judge June 5 th , 2026