Juma S. Bussiya vs Zonal Manager (South Zone) Corporation (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1998) [2000] TZHC 613 (11 August 2000)

,o- '. . 1,: : . ' IN THE HIGH. COURT OF TANZANI1\ '.-'·· J.IIISC;. CIVI~ .APPJ. ,11,Q!"',2~. Of 199~,- _ " .. , .. ·.,' .... - .,. •'' ·(, ·'; ,•,:, .. :"' (From I:isc. Civil Application Ifou4/98 of RLI' s Court Jibeya) . . . . . ... :.• .. JUMA s-. BU8 fo:tA ..• ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ . -~ :··} :: : • · ...•.•• -'iiPPE LLA 1-=: · · zoNA111AnAGER (sbuTHy°'TiIzAktf·:pos±. ..... '.· •,·::r; 1 ··· CORPORATION).:, .: ; :.- : . , ; •.•• RE;SPONDEJ;JT · · , ,· ,•·. :' ,,This appe;:1,:i vvas. instituted. on 17t_h Novemb::r. 9 1998~ .,v~!_l:n_the :- - .·. d ... l. fikt-ng fees were paicl. vide E11Y. -No.05101-899" It --vs .... irni tted _to '{;:r:he.-aring on _21st tT.anary 1999 •. ,:Nothing was done. to. i;t until"..:l . Decemaerp 1999, when.it was set_qoym for hearing". -';!:he appelant ' . ' . -.· .. . .. did not appear. Upon perusal of the record, and the. Co1'.l1thavi,ng satisfied itself that the applicant had lost interest, the 'sppe,a.l was dismissed for want of p:t'oe cution on 22nd De cernbe·r, 1999. -:1 : The applicant filed the instant a>pliatioh in which he prays ' . • .. < • • .- . . . ! :. : . . . . ,.· • ' •; . :: f ' that his appeal.be restored to hearing·y1~~£...J2..§_rt. -- ,,.,. .As is the,. usuai prao;t..i,.p~ ,.of this court the ... applicat_iqn i,?, supported by .. . . ~ . .. affidavi tal evide'!'l.ce. ,,· ; . .According to the applicant's evidence :1'lis .appeal cm.,1.ld not· be dealt with. by the Court be cause the Court was approaching its --- ;;=i .. ---•·:·t: .. , :: '1·, . '•,;: vaccation;; I ;;GlID, sure he re:f:Fl=h t,-0, ·the _phpistmas, recess. That ~ -: . . . . : . . . . . ~ .. ·. . . . · . .-.. . ,- . .. . nothi_ng: ·c'ciu:ld · •eFtione • to hi•sr.matter be G-au:i:':ie ·:•between March and June ••:: :Ji):,:,:: •'.: •••:-: .. j-:r:•: •·/., ... :.,.•I-• 1999 the court was busy with" sessions cas'es 'which -were held almost : -.1 .. :!· 1 _·:":~~ _; ! , : · ;.L~)F :; r, __ : .. ::· .. . .. :::: 10 v 20

2 : . ·· .. of a certiiic3te of agertqy{ the:,appeal vms for the first time set down •f •r hearing on 13th April;·· 2000. It is also in his evidence -·-·--.:__~ . ·-: that he has been; lteenly folldwing up on .bis aj_)peal from the day he filed it. The espondent has opposed the application. After introductory preliminari,s t!Is Stella Sirnkoko, Princi},al Legal Officer of the respondent, raises two preliminary 9bjections in her counter affidav;i,t., The firstobjection,i-sdouble-pronged~ namely, that :.•.,.·;_ . . . . ~ . the application is ·bad in law on the grotmds:- . . thr;t it is- made under the vvrong law, and (ii) th;:·-it is mag.e out of time and without leave of this Court. Secondly, that the ;:;1.p:"Jlicant has not disclosed sufficient cause for llfs non-appe G,rc.n·ce wlien: the;-, appeal W8.S caiie=d.- tor hering • .. :.:~ 10 Pkr~graph 4 contains aiJ rmifncts ',; akin to those which a de fenant may raise in his/her written statement of de fence f anp. they ark to the . following effect:~ .. __ _ __ .,. __ _ fa) th:'.\ t the contents of parvcr;,:;.phs ( 1) . and (2) of'the applicantts-1':fidav:it;;}.1ave been noted• y (b) th2,t.i15f:lragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 andr7are . . . ,,,,. strongly disputed and . strict prcef .ii. re qui red O The re sp onde n t : :c oltte nd s that .· tf..'.i.s (;purt did not in any, -Q.;:=;se. i.top its .. ·. , .. :: {-: activitie as alleged 9 . .Y t_he a1Jplic-ant .. ·,-.:· or at all; >:n, ·:·r_:· (P.) tri.a t in addition and without pre jud~i 9 t"part:graph 4(b) above, 1ihe respondent . ! ·- :· .-- .. : -· '-: . contends that this Courti, a,ctE!d quite fairly

• . ; :".-( -in .. q..is,ni±soing the applic~~~i•Jn since the appe liant was not ic!+g,: dili.ge'ntly in cond1.,-i.:cting t-p.i S case and'. tl10.t: tll app.li cant :_•ought: to be. acco{inti:i.'hle :fpr l'ris ·own , . . '. .. ·- '· .. ' ·:.· ( . inclili 6 er1qe .and re ckl~ .sne ss; and··· •" '· . '·-··· -: . .:. .·; .l /_;.i ... , .. ~. 20 30

. : . ' ' "· •:;,. )- .·.. .. ;• .. • .. ; :.-. :,::'.:, \d) · t-t-. wih' ega_rd to ,p-§ii!;grn:ph 8 df'',-. · · :-i ' . ,.. .. .- :.- r : ::.: ,_: -1. • . , . : . , '·: - .- - ?'; t'he··· ·affid.avl t, the re sponde:n't .c_ont:nd,sJthi::ift .the:.::C2.se shofrla/hot be· restod since .. : ;·: '.• . •;·· ".":,•: )· .. entertainin,g it:; hail;:bef:'Je s judicat . . .-, . : .. ,.. . :· ibe cnus~ the trial court 'had aire'ad§ . _ : : . . ~ · .. -~ .... . ~ ': 5: t:· ·. ·. ; \ ',, · de'alt -·with the said interpretatiort)ind:, . . . : .. h.•·;"1,1~-r,:1.:•·:.~ :.. . . consv.:Lted.· vari'ou·s·"internretations made • '. ·.1 : ..• .• . '·. . - . : : : ' •. : •• by the Court of .Appeal in reaching i t·s judgment. ,, Whe.n :the Pf3tiei§: ;y,.,(i'f'e ,cifoi1ed 'upop- to file i ten arguments e'a·c'h 10 • ·.· ..... ~ . . .. -. r' . j_".-:..;· ... :·.·,. '. said;,s:their-::affo.d2vi ia'l' evidence was eriq11_gh .. thy had . .. ., .. ,") nothing: e'1se. 1, ~ > • • .J .•.!_:t .. L-..:·\· ·.• ·'. - !:-:" ·. ,.; . . . . . :· r f:: · ;'.'· :. · ,i· · pass· the test for.what should be · confi!ine.d in an affidavi.t., · .. · , For (:: -: .. 1.:. · Aff.Ldavi ts hall b-- c.onfined .. :· .. ' ;·, ! : • ;, ::• :r;: I.\ .' •' • ;: '' . to; su.ch :fac'ts as the dcponerit iy a:ble of- bis· own"knov1;lodge to p:i;-qv • • . o n • ,.- .. '. . . .. ,•., ·There is the.refore···110 ·room for :preJ,.iminary objections.,_ -Ind-'d, ah·· Z{) ~ ,: . . . ·. . •. \ . . !·r ~ t,: . aff_iQ.:VJ,;t; shall not'cdntain any argents_.a:t;1d submi,ssiohs' ·:on ;oJ~_ts .. \ '· -'-' ,. • : . . • ; •.·. • • 9 ' . . \ .---., . . ..... of law,.,F:,-,What';the· •re sifon'dent was.· re qui:-ed to qo · wa··thi,s;.· , -'Firstly, to offer evidence, the facts, upoM. wh,t.ch it defend-s; i s-lf., against the applicati_on_ .. . L:•.;).·.:.•. . .. then give nqt_i,£8-.P:. in .2 :--ijeparate document, .. ·) ~ . · .. : ,". - . , ·., . .. . . . Onp_- the counter· affidc:Vi t vvas file4, it could, that it intends to ... rc1ise- 0 . preliminary i::\rrt.r,of. ob 1 jEctcti·ons, : 01:i"tling them in the said; .. . •-·/ .. . ·. -.. . document, which are to be heard ahead of hearing the applicati()i.i • • • ; • • • ' • f,_ .. ~ • ! .... inter Earte s •. On the date o_n w.qi ch the ·apL1licat1 on vill b_e et_··•-:,•" >u ;· . . • · . · .. :. t :5 ; · : '. · .. .' ·. . · .· ·; -i • · :)c.- · ·-· down for hearing the par_t~::$, ... 9μld advnce legal arguments il\ N'1?"· prosecution and defence of the ob_jections why they believe they 30 '· _.- should be given the relief .. tbey sek .• ·· In our" present circumstances :-:-.."•v:•:· , . paragraph 3 of the. counter aff,,{iq;3vit should have be~.n filed ... #. (',;: .. ··t .• --. · .. :. sea:tately as the p'l'.'e:Liminary objections. and what--~s in parngraph

4 ...... 4 should have ,,f..ornetl the Q/3.sis. fqr submis 9 io;ns on 1 .;::points of law. Since; thei43'fore/· the ''counter ·aff1p.av.i'-v• .contains matters other. '··:.-. .. to· ,,,.,., , ... · :··•.·, .,. than facts,. t: -/._a,yf the e\ride-c on which:_the respondent relies, the same is inadmis$ible,. ,ap;d calmqt.,be., acted on., This, . . then, leaves the 8pplication :w'ilthou.t any(,eviiderice by which the respondent would he.VG contrVtecf tl'i'.~ :,f:ficlavit thnt SUp:i_Jorts the appli ca ti on. .. contents are entirely at variance with the Cour_:t. :record,. '.Now:here 10 inactive because the Court was on .. sessions between Harch and June : · . · • • · 1 · L ~ •. : · f. , · · 1999 as .alleged in p21rsgraph_ 4: •. )} is c;ls0; .a lie that thE) ,~~al was set down for he2ring on l.3,tll:.Aprl, .. ,2000 in re,-sponse to the certificate of ure;en6y· the applica'1t1;:<:fi1cd on 16th November, 1999; the record does not say so. It is now that the applicant has shown interest be c3use he filed his c,Jrti:ficate of u:rgency 0 . ,top mont,hs after''the DITpeal was' a'chni tted on 21st Janua1-(y, 1999. -And,, had he been di'lic:ent 9 ,: he ·coμld not h2vc taken- t,ver-.t-wo months ,- be:fore. he• could hr:we reslisad that hLs appenl had beein '.d,.isrnissed for want Of prosecution~· On'· the other h,,nd and hav'ing '.per$cl. the rlilig of he''\ 1 rial court, th;; applici.-:t stand n' reaonabtc- chan·i,' of su~~~edirid . :·- ... · .. : I". ·O l " . _ .. '. : ,· - . ' · .•. ·. "~ .. • -, . .!~ilovving the appl1.c'ati·or1 would, -therefore? serve . . . . - no useful purpose.

• Up?n, .the foregoing considerationsi the applicatio~ is . . . /",. ·. • -· .. l :·.i~ ·-.\ C ···: 1 ;-; c., dismissed.. There shnll be· no· order ns to .costs. Delivered. .J.- ---- ---,· :·:/:Y-::-:-·--7,'.c'-... I:Ie; clrnnja , __ JUDGE. • 1 Iii Person;_ - For.' JPl~iic8nt 11.,8 •. 2poo . u .. Absent_- J?or Respondent .. •. :-, ... f' 20 30