Abdulrahamani Adinani Zayumba vs Malulu Co Ltd (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6870 OF 2025; Small Claim Case No. 9502 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 3011 (4 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA TANGA SUB-REGISTRY AT TANGA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6870 OF 2025 {Arising from Small Claim Case No. 9502 of 2025 of the District Court of Korogwe District at Korogwe) ABDULRAHAMANI ADINANI ZAYUMBA ............................................... APPELLANT Versus MALULU CO LTD ............................................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT K. R. MTEULE, J. 03 rd June, 2026 & 03 rd June, 2026 This Judgment is in respect of an appeal instituted by ABDULRAHAMANI ADINANI ZAYUMBA (the appellant) to challenge the decision of the District Court of Korogwe delivered in Small Claims Matter No. 9502 of 2025, in which the suit was determined in favour of the Respondent herein. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the said decision and the consequential orders, has preferred this appeal before this Court seeking, inter alia, that the appeal be allowed and that the entire proceedings, judgment, and all resultant orders of the trial court be quashed and set aside. The background of this appeal, as emerging from the pleadings and the Judgment of the trial court, is that the dispute was commenced as a Small Claims matter Page 1 of 8

based upon an alleged oral understanding entered into in December 2023 between Zayu Company Limited and Malulu Co. Ltd who was the Claimant before the trial court, and also the Respondent herein. Zayu Co. Ltd was the Respondent in the trial court, but its name does not feature in this appeal. Instead, it is ABDULRAHAMANIADINANI ZAYUMBA who is the Appellant herein. The agreement concerned the operation and management of Zayu Health Center, the hospital owned by Zayu Company Limited. The Claimant Malulu Co. Ltd asserted that during the period from December 2023 to August 2024 Zayu Company Limited received and retained monies payable to the Claimant Malulu Co. Ltd from NHIF and Jubilee Insurance Scheme. The claim is grounded on a recovery of TZS 30,053,948/= together with TZS 10,000,000/= as specific damages and costs. Zayu Company Limited disputed the existence of any such oral arrangement. It maintained that it was Malulu Co. Ltd who was in breach of a written contract dated 7 th September 2024. According to Zayu Company Limited Malulu Co. Ltd, the respondent herein allegedly became indebted to the Zayu Company Limited in the sum of TZS 166,000,000/=. This amount is forming the basis of a counterclaim for the said amount covering the contractual period from 7 th September 2024 to 28 th February 2025. Following hearing of the matter by the trial court, found it to be proved to the required standard of law, and proceeded to decide in Malulu Co. Ltd's favour by entering judgment for TZS 30,053,948/= with interest at court rate of 7% per annum from judgement date to the date of final payment, dismissing the Page 2 of 8

claim for specific damages for want of proof and awarding costs of the suit to the respondent. Whereupon the Appellant dissatisfied with the said findings, judgment and decree, preferred the present appeal impugning the trial court decision, challenging the finding of existence of valid contract between the parties; determination of issues against Zayu Health Centre who was not a part to the case; issuance of a biased Judgment with contradiction between the framed issues; proceedings and orders; deciding in favour of the Respondent who failed to prove the case; admission of secondary evidence (Exhibit C4 Collectively) contrary to the law of Evidence Act [Cap.6 R.E 2023); and failure to find no cause of action between the parties herein. In the course of the prosecution of this appeal, the Appellant diligently made efforts to effect service, evidenced by proof of service duly executed and signed on 13 th April 2026, which was subsequently uploaded into the electronic case file on 3 rd June 2026. Notwithstanding such efforts, Respondents could not appear. It is on record that, following such failure by the Respondent to appear or participate in the proceedings, the Court on 20 th May 2026 issued an order directing the appeal to proceed ex parte against the Respondent. The Appeal was argued by way of written submissions. The learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Mathias Nkingwa, duly filed his submissions pursuant to the Courts directions. However, while in the preparation of the Judgment, it became apparent that there exist material anomalies and inconsistencies in the trial court records, Page 3 of 8

particularly with respect to the identification and naming of parties as originally instituted before the District Court of Korogwe, as reflected in the pleadings, proceedings, Judgment, and decree, and as subsequently carried into this appellate record. From the record of the trial court, it is noticeable that on 23 rd July 2025, following an application by the Respondent herein for amendment of the Appellants name, leave was granted and the Claimant thereafter filed an amended statement of claim on 20 th August 2025. Subsequently, on 10 th November 2025, the Appellant herein, and Respondent in the trial court, filed a reply to the amended statement of claim, in which the Respondent continued to be identified as Zayu Company Limited. From there, the Respondent was consistently described as Zayu Company Limited throughout the proceedings, and the matter proceeded to a full hearing on that basis. Despite the foregoing, in the Judgment and in the decree, the trial court titled the Respondent as Abdulrahaman Adinani Zayumba. However, in the substance of the judgment, particularly 2 nd paragraph, and in the substantive portion of the decree, the Respondent is referred to as Zayu Company Limited. In this court, the petition for appeal is titled ABDULRAHAMANI ADINANI ZAYUMBA, which is distinct from the pleadings and the proceedings, though tallying with the title of the judgment and decree. Page 4 of 8

In view of this patent discrepancy in the identity or naming of parties as between the pleadings, the Judgment, the decree, and the petition of appeal filed herein, I thought that there may be an irregularity on the face of the record, warranting bringing it up suo motu, necessitating the appellant to address this court on the legal position of the matter and the way forward. The learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Nkingwa, in response, conceded the existence of the discrepancy in the naming of the parties as appearing in the judgment and decree when contrasted with the amended statement of claim filed in the trial court pursuant to the amendment of 22 nd July, 2025. Nevertheless, he attributed the said inconsistency to the fault of the trial court and maintained that the appeal aligned with the form and the content of the impugned judgment. He contended that the Appellant could not have framed the appeal otherwise. As to the appropriate course to be taken, learned counsel urged this Court to invoke its revisionary jurisdiction to nullify the entire proceedings and order that the matter be heard afresh before a different magistrate. Since the matter was heard ex-parte, only Mr. Nkingwa for the Appellant got an audience to submit on this issue. The determination of this point will therefore be solely based on his submissions. Having given due consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel Mr. Nkingwa, the issue for determination is whether the discrepancy in the naming of the parties constitutes a material procedural irregularity Page 5 of 8

warranting the exercise of the Court's revisionary jurisdiction, to set aside the proceedings and an order for a retrial. It is a settled position of the law that proceedings are rendered vulnerable to revisionary intervention to the extent of nullification and retrial only where there exist material procedural irregularities or defects that taint the record of the very proceedings. This principle was emphatically articulated by the Court of Appeal in Michael Obey Daud v National Microfinance Bank Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2022 [2024] TZCA 1257 (10 December 2024), TanzLii. In this authority, the Court underscored that not every error or omission justifies the nullification of proceedings. Only such defects which go to the root of the record or occasion a miscarriage of justice can lead to nullification. In the alternative to total nullification, this Court is vested with revisionary and supervisory jurisdiction empowering it to issue appropriate orders, including directions for amendment of records and correction of proceedings where it is apparent that the defect complained of does not go to the root of the matter but merely requires rectification to reflect the true and correct state of the record. Such supervisory jurisdiction is expressly conferred under section 44(1) (a) (b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap. 11 R.E. 2023, which vests in the High Court the general supervisory authority over subordinate courts, including the power to call for and examine records and to issue such orders and directions as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Page 6 of 8

In the present matter, I have carefully considered the magnitude of the error in relation to the nullification suggestion given by Nkingwa Advocate. I do not agree that the error is so grave as to amount to or disclose any procedural irregularity of such gravity as contemplated in the above cited authority in Michael Obey Daud v National Microfinance Bank Ltd (supra). In my view, the appeal is predicated upon a judgment and decree which is marred by a correctable anomaly that does not affect the substance or validity of the entire proceedings. In essence, the proceedings carry a correct reflection of the parties in the pleadings. It saves time and resources to save the proceedings and only correct the judgment and the decree, which appear to have errors in the name of the Respondent. Mr. Nkingwa could have applied for such rectification instead of basing his appeal on such a defective judgment and decree, which, in my view, renders it incompetent for being preferred against a person who was not a party in the suit. From the foregoing, it is my finding that the proper remedy lies in rectification of the judgment and decree rather than annulment of proceedings in respect of Small Claim Case No. 9502 of 2025 of the District Court of Korogwe District at Korogwe. Since the appeal is founded on a defective judgment and decree, it cannot stand the test of competence. From the foregoing, I see no need to consider the grounds of appeal, but rather, there is a need to strike out the appeal for being incompetent and order the rectification of the errors in the judgment and decree. Page 7 of 8

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby struck out for being incompetent because of being founded upon a defective judgment and decree incapable of sustaining appellate intervention in its present form. Nevertheless, and in exercise of the Court's supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction under section 44(1) (a)(b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap. 11 R.E. 2023, the trial court is hereby ordered to effect necessary amendments to the judgment and decree to ensure conformity with the amended pleadings and the record of proceedings. Should any party wish to further challenge the said decision, she/he can do so based on a correct judgment and decree. No order as to costs. It is so ordered. Tanga this 04 th June, 2026 REVOCATI MTEULE / JUDGE th June, 2026 Court: x. Judgment delivered virtually on this 4 th Day of June, 2026, in the presence of Mr. Mathias Nkingwa, learned counsel for Appellant and in the absence of the respondent. REVOCATI MTEULE June, 2026 Page 8 of 8