Edward Mbwaga vs Subilaga Ndabila (Misc Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 595 (26 September 2000)

1111!11111"""' ·': "··. ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF TNNZA!.\TI.A ,AT MBEYA 1 MISC., CIVIL AJ??EAL NO. 4· OF 1999 (From the decisioh of the Rungwe District C~)Urt · District at TukUJTU ,in misc_~. Civil Appeal l'io •. 9/98) . . : -· ,; ·. : . : . :·. . : : EDV/ARD MlWIAGA O o O O O O • ~- o O d. O •. ;. ~ 0 .. • ~ •. 6 t, H ... • 0 • ,.,APPELLANT ·- ·• . ' VERSUS SU:3ILAGA NDABILA •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESJ?OfJDENT . ' • : • t ~ R U 1··1 N' G

J::LI.\CK/11-TJA J. ___ ...... -.r.-·..i·-,..,., .. ,.-.J_ ' -· ':'Jf"". . :_ :· -~ -, . The respondent 'successfully petitione!ii for divorce before .. ;· :"- :·:; ;-··: the TuJ;:uyu.;Urban P:r;-tm_2.r} Cirrt.' ·The appellant did.not 2ppeal within the time·. pres_pr'.ibd .by +l?IWo So he a1Jplied·"-'f or enl2rgement . -. . -t . '~ •: • • •.: • 1 of time wi thiri\dhidh ttr'8.j)' 11 eal before the District Court of : :---•·.··. Rung we Di strict at TukU,'llU. He· instituted 11.is appli,cation on :: . l ot, -- o il l,lay, 1998. ' .. . . . . ' ,. '. :· That c::.: 1 }plication was· dismissed when the applicant d,f~hited td:·d:Si)e'.ar on 14th .August,.,1998. ; T4e np1Jellant before me .\1a; ~ppealed ·;to· challenge the decision that dismissed his applic;ti.on for· extention of. time. rKr. Mbise, learned counsel for the apj;)ellant ha's. ~rt 3u.ed this appeal. He has ur.ged me· to allow the appeal-, contending that '. ' • ': ;,·1 := .• that is the only way to ll.o jusi;ice, to his client. .Accord.in,:;, •J to lerned· counsel the a:;:ipeJ.lant had two options open to him. One, th&t he co:uld hav-e 2/Jlied ·before the District Court for an order to ·set aside the order dismissing the application.. The so cond p-ti8n _·wa·s' :f 01" ·liirrf to appeal,• as l!e .has. done. When ; t. '. . 2.sked to gi ~ .. the. legal "bcJis · for the se·con'd· opti-on lerncd ·' coU11se l gave up th.at idea, conceding that the ap'.!_Jlic;ant, our.(ht .. '.,/ .. to h~ve persued the first.option. Howeve'r, ·t1tiw that he h½rn, . • • •/2

2 appealed he ist nevertheless, enti tled, 1 .to receive a ::judgi1:1ent on the m2tter. Now the procedure for applications for extention of ,time rei::iting to appeals ori{inating in pririar·y,, courts is provicld,.,· -:· ... ·- ,: - ... for u...11.der Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure, _(.Appeals in Procec;Jings •:• •• "r' • :; •.•• Originating in Primary' Courts}. Rules,· 1964 which were lJubl+,slJd as Government Notice·· No.312 of that year •. -It provides, the 1 • • • re lev;,,.nt part only, ·thft ·J · · : "3 .. .An appliction for .leave \to ·appeal out of time to·~ Distrit Court from a de.cision or order of· a primary court ••• ---shal'1.:...be···in writing, shall set out the reasons why a petition of c11penl was not or cannot he filed within thirty days after the date·. of···-- 1~-' . the decision or order· against which it is desired. to appeal, 3~-a: slall be .!;lCCofapmifd by the petition of aL)lJe2.l or shall st owt,>the grounds of objection to the decision,,or-. order·· H • • • 4t The Rules do not provide any particular course of c,ction to be taken in case an applicGt.{~n for extention ·of time i:3 dismissed :· .• : ·. ~ '! '·.::

for default. . :Nhere 9 hmvever; 'n- appeal i,s dismissed upon default .) •, . . · .. ~ : ' . ' ,' ' to appeal'. by the appllctit, RU:ie 17 provides that:- 11•.a the appellant, he or his agent ay apply to the appellate dourt for the re-ad1ru:ssion of the appe1( and if the court is satisfied that he was I,revertta.· by any sufficient cause · frchn appearing e·i ther persoxi.:11.ly or by aBent when the appeal was ctLl1ed on for hrering it 'may re-ad.mi t the ::.,lppeal. on such terms as_ to -. ··.;· .. costs or otherwise as it tr..ihlrn fit." Since the rules do not m1;1ke provision for the procefure to be followed in a case such ns t.(l.is one, it car 1 .not be assumed that·the t_ • ..

• 3 applicant is entitled to appeal as of right. .As it is 1:.ow ·well- settled, an appeal is c:i creature of legislction. Tr'l;le, th0re is a l3cv.na in the legisl2.tion, but it has nev·er been te function of courts in this country to fill in lacunoe in statutesi The -." fv..rthest the court can co is to in the ;Legislation to ,discow:r the intention. of the legisl3ture., If; in -t;he instant case, P2rli:m1ent intended to create a right to n:,)peai against ex JJarte . . order made upon a partyt s def3uit to appear it would s1::iid soi In my judgment, therefore, the provisons of Rule 17 apply, i11utatis Inutz.ndis to applications w.bJ.ch .have been dismissed :i..n sinilar -·--""""-- ' . ~ . . . circm!lstances. It foliows 1 then the ap: 1 )ellant was required institute an application before the District Court for the re- ndrn.i.ssion of his applioatior.i.. His failure to do so has rendered his a:i_Jpeal untenable; it would fail as a result\ The appeal is dismissed with costs upon the foregoin.z co:.1.sic1erations. (_ ·Deliwred. l .. ·.· I . . . - ,, G • . I f:,, , .. -- -'/ .. ,... ...-:. Appe llctnt: - In pelt'son Respondent In person. J .IVI .. rilCKANJA JUDGE:

26. 9o 2000 Certified true copy of the original judgment • • '!, • S.A~N. WAKBUR.A DI STHI CT REG I STRI\R NBEYA

•• J ' ' , ' ' ) i ,, .) :.1, L -..·r ,I , . • __ + ◄