Tramico Investments Company Ltd vs Kahzilme Bahigina and Another (Civil Revision No. 22 of 2002) [2000] TZHC 193 (30 August 2000)

~ " JN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA A'r DAR ES SALAAM -----.-.-:-e .,.,,-., F·•v CIVIL REVLSION Neic1 · 22/02 TR.AMICO INVESTMEN''IB COMPANY LTD Versus·· · , KAHIZ ILT:::T BAHIGANJ'i & ANOTHER ..... .. , .. RULING __ .....,.....~ RESPONDEN'.11 This .is a revision in which this ··court is being asked to tmllify a warrant .of a-rt:b~.e::.:::t issued- against. a vessel' named m' BANUSSO: IJ; - . · the ground that· -the vessel ·is the property of the -applicant who is. no't. . ... . , a party to the proceedings which led -to the attachment order. - •, . ' - The applicant is TRAMICO JNVESTMENT COMPANY LlMITIID~ One ·!Wiizil.$ge Ba filed a chamber 'application under S_ection 12 (2) o the Marchant Shipping Act and Section 133 of the Employment .Ord:mance Catt' ,, , . ; --:;--- .. · . . . . . . .... ... ·- . - , ;66 and Section 95 ·of the Civil Pl-QCedure Code 1966 prayfug fo ··p-,yment .. . ··-" ' . . . . . . ..· .· . . . . .. . - X. •.•: ... _ cf wnges.. The Mruioging J>:lri-or · DEN...TAXI RESOURCES LTD in th~ chamber -- ... - ·/ · applictltion .is ~ r~~dent. ibe applicetion ws :filed in court on ·· .. .. .. ~ ... . 19/12/+ ~ .. Kalizilt\ga Bohigone :i.s··the ·respondent in this revisional · : · is alicction .in the subordt~ court wns heord e,:-p!lrte. Att~ to hove ttus exparte doer~ set aside w!la not euceees:f'ul~ It was in the ootton · of the decree tho· the vessel which -i:.:>h::.c the subj9ct tt-er of theao proceedings -JM .:t:tce::-::a.- Objection procedings were filed in tb&_ subor-dincite court to cD.llenge the attachmi;nt but were diomi.sa., Tho d;.sml of -ttze o1)Jocio• 1"'-·c..:).d1t,g,, ie. 3'1hot h"S led to the f'U.'-blg_ of this resion. ~ rion hne l>wGn-filed under (111$ 44 (1) ·of the Mogistratas. Courts Act 1984 as "811 zu, &c-t&m {1) ond Secti.<»:1 95 -o the Civil edur-e Code 1966 os well .'.l6 Order XXI rtll.e 24 (2) ond Rule 57 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966. The opplic[.lnt is being repreated 'Ly Mr •. Dutx:on. learned A.dvocete. ~ peepon.dont- .Lt: ':Jot -rep1:QSe1-:i·ad. 'l'he respondent :;.:t.r..<:>.t ~~·,.,"? -1,-..,,,-1 ... ,,,, ,.,, ... t" .of -Objection. The portiea· filed written subrnissio:it for !:ind o.gtdn"'t the opplic""tion under the. diz&etion of this court. i]J29 S!lme with the preliminry objectic 1 -, APPru-ently, the !'espondent ·btls n_o't filed -- repl.y to the preliminory obje llOr a r to- the in application. Although he hs filed tl .... t,'t ••• • /2. .. . . ' ' .. ,i.·

- 2 - . / t-.1.me · chtlmbel:' ,CLpplicati.o;i seeking for ension o to· file the smne. ii; is not worthy ol.lowing the .applicotioi1 to proceed to .fulJ.heoring of the chomber. :. application beco.use ot the enc" of the dy it migltd:t not ll1tet' th& out .. 1 · come of the re,rision. This view is being expressed ofter e thorough study of the proceedings in the trbl court os well us the· iresent txppliootion ond the submissions filed •. It is important for me to mention thot the reseorch done by the porties is o.pprecio.ted, I tho.nk them for their efforts. Their submission• is ·of· ossistonce in. the disposal of this application. The first point of preliminry objection is that. the etpplice-tion is ·time bo.rred. ·Htrnng ispected the record of the trial court and the time when the revision was filed, I will sc.y that this objection hs no merit. The ruling in which this re:vision is being I'l'&f~~ ~ oelivered on 13 February 2002. This rev:f.sion s filed on 19th Febru 2002. While I o.pprecio.t_& the submisaion made by the respondent on this ');loint, the truth.of the'motter is thot he is mistoken;, Mr. Duncan submitted·C'Oft'ectly ' ' tho.t the opplico.tion ~~s filed on the s:brth doy ofter delivery of the ruling. It wos · filed W!'l:·thin time. ' ' Rego.rdi.ng. the second point of -0bjection,. .. the Nspondent ~ to be concerned why Mio.., Du.Dean cited both Section 79 (1) of the Civil ProceduN Cod~ 1966 ond Section 44- (1) of the Eog:istratae Courts Act~ His· opinion -~ ~ .Mr. Duncan shou·.1.d heve n ap9ci.tic on which l)rorlsion of the liJ.w he is r~~~ rQther n ·quoting both of them. In other words the llpplico.nt ought to so.y whether she is relying on Section 79 (1) of the Pivil . .Proe_e Code ·1966. or .Section· -(1) of .. the Mo.gisot&s·, 'Courts Act. Mr.Dl.1::zc.:i.!.,~ response is deto.iled .. However the point _raised by the respondent hS;S eubsto.neQ-giv-entbA- di.etinct1.CRJ. fflBti:og in the eirCUJnstQn.Cee o:f tll.e .application of the two provisions. The· provision o.f &ceirio~ '?9' {1) qf the Civil Procedure .Code 1966 are restrictive.· They Ql'e limited to jur:lsdic·don tht is octing without jurisdiction or exercising ct.1. -i- 2 -1.-s-'iob 44 (1) is broodert covering ~ oa. nfl&-ctins rror TIWtit1r1a·1 '4f'O i .. .._.,..__,tonc,es ·of ·the ct\Se invDl,ving inJustice. G:.ven t4 diat1nctton it is imponori1.··-- ~ o.pplicllnt to point 1:mt .apoci.r-iclly the prov:1i◊u 1;.1hi-ch irs being rel,iod upon rot '. doing o. guess work. f~l the sme1the ••.i:of 1:tic provisions is not o. fatal raistD.ke wrrcmting the dismissol of the applic.?.tion. Regarding the citing of Orders XXI Rule 24 (2) o.nd Rule 57 I mut say they were q~oted out of contest"~I.,ns fer s these previsions re eono.erd. ilhey hove no r.elotionshi:P at all with these -pr,ocinga ~e ...... /; ,.. \ .

, ... I apprevic.te the submission· m.?dc by Mr. Dunscan· on this aspect my feeii'ngs tire that they are tc '.-lly irrelsvo.nt to these revisional proceedinga. 1hey Add nothingtlr]. the appliction which is before this court np0rt from rflecting some . doubts ~~n the tidvoeote on which provisions of the. ,law are npplicnble under the circumstances which led to the filing of the application. All the some, d.t:i.ng them does not moke the npp1icetion fato1. :po.rt:tcularly wher'e the onnbling provisions for filing !I revision hve been cited. The respondent hos also roised rui argument to the effect tht under Section 112 (1) of the '·.:ercl.::-'.:::.t·. Shipping Act 1967• the seil mens. lien over . . . . . ! , ll vessel .does ·not ch,nge with the chonge of ownership of the "O'~~. n-ie · answer to the argument is simpie. It oll depends how the ownership ptlSSee. In .:iny event this is not a motter which con be argued by prelimineiry . objection because. evidence will .be required to show w4c, is the owner ond how the ownership wos ocquired. &ving onaly-8ed the arguments given in respect of the prelimin,ry objection, + mus·t. concluc39' by saying that the prelimim:iry · objection hs · no me:l"it~ It is dismissE,.i.o The next step is .to look at he opplication for revision.. Dunotln eubmi tted thot by tire -ti~ e -eniployment Couse No. 264 ·f 199? we.a. dfr.; mined, the vessel BANU8SO II ~ ~ longoor the property of the judgment·· debtor{DEN • '.L¼N RU,OW\tfil3) • !he reason gi-ven is tht DEN -TAN RESOURSES wo.s· involved. in !Ugh Court ivil Case No. 106 of 1996 which_ led th ownership of the vessel to poss to Industuru.izo.tion Fund for Developing · Cotu:if.:r~ "!I.hereafter, the vessel tros put· der the Receiver/Monager. ·. (Mr •. N-od Mlcono) • Thoe vessel was sold to Tongol Fishing Company· ond ownership woe tronsferred to it on 24th February• 1997. At a leter stage, on 20th December• 2000 the npplicont bought the vessel from ~ Fi. shing Company Limited. Mr. t.e eubmi..ci.sion lihic1:-. ie co:rrct is tho.t the sequence of events show t/l:it ot the time tha 0ase wo.s filed in the trfol court on · 19th .Dooember, 1997 D:EN-Tf;N REBOt'TlClIB LIMITED wca no longer the owner of the vessel JM.NUSSO II. There M:ts no justifico.tion for the tril court Jiismieew the objection proceedjnes. The sequence of the events clerly show th,'.'.lt the_ ves.1el ·ws sold even before the filing of the opplic!11tion by the c?ecree hol< 1 er-. 'Ihe dismissal oceossioned injustice to the o.pplie-,::mt beco.use h r property was bepg ottachec' 111hile she was not o port, to the proce-9Ungs and she hod not even been given th& _opportunity to be heard$ .dllt•······/4

4

In addition. Mr. Dunc.on so.id that since the vessel wos. initittlly aold by on order of the courts then the trial court had no jurisdicti~ to entertain the cose. He cited Section 121 (b) of the Merihnt Act 1961,. orguing thnt exclusive jUrisdiction is conferred to the High Court where a seaman or apprentice clims for recovery of wages w}Jere the ship i~ sold uhc1er the authority of the court. This c:outt tokes judicn1 notice of the consent order mde in the High Court Civil CtlBe No. 106 of 1996, between !L.;:,1,AN R:ElS£?.TD,,YS -~ INDUSTRIALIZATION FT.nm FDR DEVElOPlliG COUNT:CRIIB. There wos t1· Memorendunt .....,,:f............ ==-.,.,· ....... r-......,.__... ~---...,..._.....,. of sttlement by the J;):lrliaa. Under Par~ 5, the IFU w?ls given !In ?1Ut6motic right of possession of the ,vessel (B!-iNUSSO II) without recourse to court or o.rry other legol a,c;·tib"m if the DEN .. TfN RESOURCES def!!ulted to honour the repayment schedule. It .appeors that DEN - T:f.1N RESOURCES defilulted end so IFU" 1rool( po,ss.e.ssion of the vessel. Subsequently DE!f. TAN RESOURCES was put under receivership. and the vessel (BANUSSO II) -ms sold t Tongol Fishing .. Company. Given the circurno":uces under .which t.he ownership of the vel=!S&l. pttssed from DEN ... TAN RESOURCH{ LTD to Tongol Fishing Compony nd then to the pr,licont, there wM no justification c.t nll for the trial mngiatrnte holding thot the sole wos intenced to pvon-t e:x-ewtion. b ~ of the v&ss&l shows thnt at the time the decree holder filed the case in the ~ court, the vessel w no longer the property of the judgment debtor• k The other irrogu.larity :pc -out by~. Duncan fa thot the triol c;ourt lt\cked juriedi,cirion to .entertain the, cDae which wos filed by the decre~ hoJ.det"Me triol court because the judgment debtor wos under ¥ePbip of I'1kono nc Compc.ny Advocates. Mr. Dunc.tm submitted correctly th,t the Reveiver ond Mr.-nnger wos not joined into the proceedings ond the suit wos filed without first obtin4ng the leove of the H.CO\l!'t ~ ~~gu:irQd b:r 8.eetion 9 of· the Bo.~ 01--e - Cl:tp 25,. Th& defects given obove i:=: on illuetrm;ton of the justice wl.,:i.ch- -,,as ~ by tho tri!\l court. 'Ihe trfol court h::.d no _j,.t,.iAc,J.<.,ti..Qll. to e12.terl'o.in the ccne which wns filec by the decree holdert is is a matte,;- which falls sque'.rly undt:r the provisions of Section t) (1) Qf the CiYil Procedure Code 1966. Since it iP o:r.ly the objection proceedings which we1·r_. ch:tllonged, thie court will suo mote revise the whole proceedings in the tri:il court under Section 44 (1) of the Ifogisirate Courts Act, 1984 hecuse thoy oro ~ nullity. I qu,osh and ~et aside the entire proceedings in :Employment Cm>Sa No 1 264 of 1997. !lo orcler of costs, ~, NoP.Kimriro