Atwidiye Reuben Sasagi vs Gabriel Sarinjo (Misc. Civil Application No. 21 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 588 (10 August 2000)

~ . ·.· ... . . . . IN THE HIGH COTJRT OF T.ANZ.£\NI.A,: ~ •. mrsc. CIVIL APPLICk2ION NO .. 21 O.F 1999 (Fro!11 I.'l)eya District Court Civil Case No. · 32 of 1998) .ATWDIITLYE R8U.BEN SASAGI ••••••••• ., •• ~ ••••• Ai?PLICANT VERS:JS G "BRI. EL S1'·nI"•J0 .·· · upQ-c,oTsDENT .ti i .L1,. l'J o • • • • <t 6 o o o o o • • c 0, 0 ;) d O ,e • o o 6 J.""""' I..J..t.. ,._; • RULIJ1TG MACKANJA. J. This is nn nr,:plication for G revisional order in respect of proceedings and orders dated 28th September, 19931> that mre made in Civil Case No.32 of 1998 of the District Court of Efbeya •. On •• : t, that day the prusmit.applicantrs objection t<? crt1chment in. exe·bution of e de; croc some property he . claims to be his ·wn was .. ,...... . - ·.- " . i...=. rt: . ,summarily re je5::ted. The· objection was insti tJed -by chamber suininons supported by affidavit. lr.iead· of ppecling against that ,.., 1: order the applicnnt opted to apply for a, revisional order /'. .

• · The affidr:vi t supporting th€ ob je cti on as we 11 .:;1s the affidavit that supports this appli•cation are partly based on the belief of te deponents and,prly on thier ovm knowledge. In addition, the .. latter affic1,vi t is partly b;:rned on information- ! ha_}'lO doubt thit such affidavits do 1:1:0.t confo1m to .s.ttu-tory requirements as laid down under Order XIX rule 1 3 of the Civil Procedure 'Code ( the CodeJ w.b..i ch l3ys doVVh the fol.lowing mandatory requirement: - "3(1) 1\ffidavits' shall be confined to such facts 1.1s ,the deponnt is able of his own .. knowledge to prove i except on interlocutory

2 .,.. app.:μcations, on which statements of his be lief mGy be admi tte d,i Provided that the grounds thereof are stated. 'rt , True an application may be proved by 'affidDvi to.l evidence. However, the lmv mskes a distinction regarding· whiGh kind of : . . .. . , , application may be pr?ve<;l .bY affidCl.vi tal evidence containing factE which are true of the deponent' s ovm knowlfc!dge ,nd applications ' . which., fa'ii"der the' latter cat;gory of Rule 3(1) of the Code The first pnrt of that sub-1'.Ule relates to substantive applicationt 'I the decision of which fina],ly detennines the :i-SSV/Js in .. dispute. In such cases an q,3peal lies as of right from· the decision. In this category evidonce of facts deponed on the be1iof of the ju.rat is not admissible. .An applicntion by which objection 1;roceedings ;. l are insti tuted..·nnd an ap))lidation :6or revision ft:ills· under this . category. The second cc1-to!oryf and to which statements of beliefs may be admitted does nott therefore, concern us hero. Indeed)! it is now tri ts :c2.selmv that facts· in an affidavit which are sourced from someone other than the do1)0:nent constitute hearsay evidence -unless the· source slso swears c:11 ·nffidavit or gives oral evidenea on onth •. 0 ••• 1 ·' - Upon 'the foregoing considerations I am se.tisfied that the •. T• .. J ,.,.,. • affidavits in question are fatally irregular such that there were · •no valid objec_tion proceedings before the lower court, nor is the .. ,, - . 'appl1cation befqro me a competent o:μc ··' ; In the rnsult I quash the ; .• 'Objectfdn proceedings before the lovver court,·- On the same. parity, the pro(}0e.,d.in,gs bof ore me are struck out with c6sts, Delivered.;: Absent :· or Applicant Mx. Naali 1 Adv. For Respondent t ~ertified true copy of the original.