Christopher Didas Tarimo vs Gabriel Sarinjo (Misc. Civil Application No. 22 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 587 (10 August 2000)

r ., •:. ~ ~ - {vt- ' .. IN THE HIG!l COURT OF TANZANIA ,· :t~~>·t..'"· .-::·····

• : . AT 'MBF.YA·, ...... .:•. ruse. crvrt PPLICATIOI(No. ~ OF 1999 {From ,moeya Distrit ·court Civil Case No • . ~ Ji ot ·1998) CHRISTOPHER . DI DAS T.ARIMO, •••••• · ••••••• ·.APPLICANT ,. ·, VERSUS GABRIEL SARII'iJO •••••••••••••••••• ,; ••••• RES]?ONDENT 0 •. RULING CKANJA 8 .J. This is an _applicatim for an order that proceedings in Civil • .. Case No. 31 .9~ 199.8: of the District Court at Mbeya dated 28'i;h Septemper 1 . 1999"~ • W.- revised. : Th~ app)J.cation is· supp_orted by· the affidavit of J.lf"Jr. ltialaba Bantu l\1wangole, an ·advocate of this Court . : ••• ,.. • ; I ' b·; . . . , ~ • j and. cpurts subordinate theto, except primary. courts. · .Acctrding ' . . ... .::. . . _:' ' . . . to. the· verifiction •~~af30 each, fact Aeponed to in that ·affidavit is true to the best of the :jurat's knowledge and beTief exeep.t . paragraphs 4 and 6 in respect of which he derives information· from .··.' ,G · court re cords• I .. .., , .. , :Sy and larGe the affidavi tal evidenoe is inadm.issi ble. For as clearly stated .i.11 Order XIX rule 3': of the Civil Procedure Code, . . . affi4avi ts - I~"""'.~ &'1.E.:.1 n ••• shall be confined to such facts as the ·: deponent is able of his owr.i lmowledge: to ,, prove, except on -interlocutory applications on which statements of his belief may be admitted: Pro-,rided that the &rounds thereof are stnted:t. T~ above provisions allow applicants to prove their issues in two Ji fferent situ.at.ions and thI'O~h different proeedure s.

I' 2 The first situation relates to substantive applicns in which parties' rights are finally determined. In this group of applications proof by af:fidavi t "shall be confined to such facts I. as the deponnt is nble of his own lrnowledge to :prove ••• 11 • -;· ·• .. ( .. An application for revision falls under·this group in which affidavit evidence shall i1ot ·be bagi_ed ei th.er on the ·belief of the jurat or ' ::. on information he ,may have re:cei vod. It follows. th2,t the latter ,( : .. category io{·eviden~ ii:_i;na·~~ssible to applications such as this • ~ ·: ,I•. . • one. . ,·· . ·. . '. : ' ,. . ... .,; ::.' ;, j_• : ... _. .", . In cases of inter-J..ocutc,ry a11pll·cat-lbns whl_ch thi~· is_.n.ot, ·····. stttements based 011;',t;l'l.e, . .dportent: s eiif re, :adJ;-d:ss{ble· ;subject t"' compliance with: thEr proviso that grounds thereof shall be- stated. . . ,,. . - .And, according to Cl::lselaw, where an affidavit is base. on . information the deponent received,. the_ source o that information -must also swear· cm affidavit or testify on oath.: Othe.fwise -such evidence remains hearsay. Someime_s-, as in this case,·. a_ jurat will swenr· that he got information from a .. court re cord. Now in orde.:t'- to consider the· court re c;ord as part of the evidence, tha·t ',. •· • .' •·:•• • I ' :'re cord ·must itself be part of the evidence"' .I:t .must be tendere·i as evidence<'! in court. This entails summoning- ·a· court offici_al ... ·.·. . . . . who nQrmally has custody bf such re cord -:t;tf·; come to court and to ' . testify on the. contGnts therein and to tender it in court• do.i:ng so reference to court records is but·hea·rsuy evidence • . ; .... ·. .,. Witnout I am satisfied, ·by reason of the above considcrati•ons, that ' 1 ,/.' • ;✓ -~,';..... .,,--:-,/ Absent . .- , ···tiJ. ·. / : For Applicant Mr. Naal.i, Adv. : For Respondent J .. r!I. m.ACKANJA .JUDGE' 10 .. a-.2000· : Certified true oopJr of the original.