Godfrey Chawe vs Nathaniel K. Chawe (Misc. Civil Application No. 23 of 1998) [2000] TZHC 614 (20 August 2000)

~~ .· i}-,2,uJ ~ / IN THE HIGH "COURT OF ·.TAiZANI.A AT MBEYA • ·,2<3· Ml SC. CIVIL APPLICATI JN N0.8 OF 1998 (From. te-· de,cisin -/-ihe District Court of ,•.· Mbe'ya· ,Dist.riot a-; . .l'.1'Ibe yq in Ci v;il Case No. 34 of 1996) · · .,·. c, ·.·, .. - ,r: .! . .i .. ;{. . :.:J .. ;. :· G{XDFREY::· Ql!A WE ••.•• h • ; ••••••••• • .••• AP:J?L1:,9Al11 ... _. ; i ..... .:; . . •:--:-. ::· ,- .... :· . :· VERSUS . : ;· r.:· I:1·•r{_:: :::.:· ::. · NATHANIEL IL CII.A\Vz" ••• ." ••••••••••• RESPONDENT ·; :r: !.".·. ·.· ,R LING :This is an application'• for an order that the order .. di:sriiiSsing : . ; . : ·:· : .. :'' . ,! ··,.' -:. it be vacated so that the said aplication be restored to hearing • ,'/. I \· ·•· .... •·' .. ..__, ... · . - . .. ,.ill~~.£ £arte?.•. T. 7 application is suppored .by the afficb.vit, ' ~ : . . ... :: -.,:-. ' .. - ;. ·1::,: · of Godfrey Chawe,~ the a:p1?licant. It may be consistent with -the nature-and.course . ' :'".: ........ of events in this proceedi~.-to noie '\1at : •, ' I • • • •. : • .-: • ~ : : • \ •; • ; : •; I • ; ~ I •; • •• • : • : '.. '::· the .respondent. did n.ot. find it necessary to file a cou...'1.ter affida.vi t 1 ... , . .. . . . . ;•!d·:: · .. · .. _ :···.(· ,.- .. ,:·~•·..iJ. . .. ":.. .· '. . •·.· ?})ti+lfs inste13q _to attach the a:pplication on points of 13Wo However .. . . . :. .. . . :. • .. ,. l ,... .·. , : .. · ,. . .: ..... (! = •. : :. ;~ :. • . ••• • he has not done as he undertook to do because even though a time s9hedule was f{:d f':; lir·:·\ilab:::;;Iwa:ti-1\ i;'irnC-'co1.u-isT" for the. clpJJlicant, and Ihl'. 1'Iika T." Mbise, learne·d c·;urisel' i;;; 'the -..1 '. '.: •. • .n.r-· :·.:- . ·:. ,:, .· , ;- . ; .:. ,·:·. :·· .. '; respondent 1 to file written a;gent in the iJrostc~tion . .:md defence . . 1' : • . . '·: •• : -· - ; . . ... ; • ! .- of this matter, none of them has done so. '·''r:Iro A;vngole . . wo:s given tin.le from_ 8th March,. to 22nd l\iiarch, 2000 ana.'iiro Mbise· .t0tl[s1lt io have done so between 22n-d Harch and 3rd Apri:1~''2000. F8ilure to file the written arg'uments on the part of le~·rned couns"el foin the . . ~ . . ' applicant is an omission which constitutes vint:.tf ·proeecutioii .. .t.; I would dismiss the, application on that account~;'' :.. ,... "".,I. .. .- ~ t Even if learned, cciVJ.'lse•l, had submitted written argmnents the application was untenable. all. the same as i.t_. offends mandato:r:-y . .. - . . ·• . . _. I.•.•• · ... :..:,:

statutory requirements as laid down under Order XIX rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Go/., .The opening p::.fft thereof provides that an affidavit shall: 0 cont2irt f2cts, which the deponent of his ovm lmowledge can prove. This part ap11lies to applicatiom in which the Court .is called upon to decride issues the detei"i;'.ination 1;· of which finally resolves the disput and. rights between pertie.s. So statements of belief Bnd those based on information aie i11ad:i.1lissible e The rule is a little relaxed regarding interlocutory. .. . , .. applications on which stctemnts·of·-the der,onent's beliefs are c.cli:,1issible in evidence if 1 as required by the proviso to_ that '·rule, the grounds .upon :vvlli9,h those beliefs are based are a.isclcise_:a. . C ·•.• It1deed, i t1 .is· now trite case law that where facts in an 8ffidavi t are sourced from informs:ti()n, the source of that info;riiation must either· swear .an affidc;vi t or testify on oath. Short~ of that th~ evidence remains hears:::.1y e In an application such as the one before me affid~::vi ted •evidence based on belief and information is inadmissible because this application is not an interlocutory one.. Everi if it were, , the -'ground·s \ipbri which the beliefs are bnsed have not been disclosed. And~ in order to escape being cc-mght by the he2rsay rule the sources of inforJ·11c:tion. in paragr3phs 6 and 12 hc:d. to given evidence on oath regc:1rding matters they informed the deponent. ··This -they did not do. Upon the· foregoihg i•easorts, and upon the fact the,t the prosGtmte his applicntiont · .J .l'. NL.4CE1;NJ:A JUDGE . 10.8.2000 For Applicant For Respondent Certified. true copy of the original Judgement. is