Cosamu Sampamba vs Njangaje Mwapashe (Misc Civil Application No. 30/1995) [2000] TZHC 627 (10 August 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TJ\NZAl\fIA AT f113EYA MTSC .. CIVIL APPLICATION,N0.30/1995 (From the decision of the District C0urt of 1'.'bozi at Vwawa in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1995, Vwawa Urban Primary Court Civil .iippeal No. 3 of 1995 - ·original Vwawa ·Ward Tribunal .••• 1• \ Case No. 98 of 1995) BEFORE·: :j ~ L. Lupensah - -D.F,. ' -· Co ,c:;f.lT" 8 ,11/ih flll/'.D :, ,. ,• . 1\PPLIC.ANT . __ -u. .tUl.r .til:D.1'1 •• a •• ~ .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • VERSUS • e e • o e • ♦ 0 • •. e e •• DE8FONDENT RULI_NG MACKA'\TJ A, _ _I. . -- ,. . '. , ... This is an apptication-for revision. It is supported by the -- - . . . \ affidavit of Cosamu Sampamba.. The application was hea.rd ex part>2 ~ . -· . . . . .... :· because, although he wa~ served, the respondent did not make appearance. It has occurred to me, while perusin_g .the record of this application, that the application is untenable after all. According tc the affidavit that supports the application, the facts deposed on in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 are true of the deponent vs own knowledge and belief true, and p::iragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are true according to information jurnt received from his advocate. In order for an affidavit to be admitted in evidence it must conform to Order XIX rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Codea Under that law, where; an affidavit is based on.the belief of the deponent the grounds for such belief must be stated. That was not done in the instant case. In addition, an application for .•. /2 ;. ~: ~< ·" r 't ;:

2 not being an interlocutory ap 11 lication, it can 0.nly b~ proved by facts which .are true of the jurant's own knowledge. Facts based on belief are inadmissible in an application such as this one. Sirr 1 ilarly, and according to case law, where any fact or facts is/are based on informati6n from other people, those other people are required '·as a Jtatter of· law to render their own oath on matters in respect· of ·which they- have provided information. Failure to de so will render the evidence wholly hearsay, as is the case here. Upon the foregoing considerations I am satisfied that the verification clause ha~ r·enderea.'"·the entire affj_clavi t evidence inadmissible. .ikcordingly, the application is struck out. ,_Th,ere J'Nil+ be r;io. order as to costs in as much as the application was

• --···-· -••--.::-: .•. ~ ·.· _! __ .. : '. • . In Person . . J • L. !".ACKAN,J A JUDGE 10/8/2000. For; Appl,-icaQ._ For ·H.espondent Cert:i.f ied true copy of the original ruling. -·· - .. --/ .·· DISTRICT REGisriiuL~. HIGd CGURT OF 1'Al"JZ/iIHA · fvBEYA