Ayubu James and Another vs Clement Otto and Another (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 25 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 527 (6 June 2000)

)-1-.C1 H U,.A,/ &t.-1- IN THE HIGH Cf'iURT C1F Tf'.NZ,A.N[A. - AT MWANZA ...... ......,...... I i~ A O ~ Ls -,Sf') t O ;;,- : -- U. ij( -•) ''" I MISCELIANEOUS CIVIL APPLIC!i.TION m.25 0F 2000 (Originating fran District Co-qrt of Ngudu District at • Kwimba in Civil Appeal · No. 7 of 1993 and MA.l:ya Primary Court Civil Co.se No. 72 of 1992) - le A :PJBU JAMES - !• •• 11 • • • • o • • • • • • • • • o oe • o o eo., • o ~ o • • e APPL!C.1. N'IS 2. PA UL0 MBUYJ. IL , - VERSUS

1. CLEME NI' OTI'O I ,- ' - 2a GERAD LEMA. ~ • • • •, • • • • • • o • • ., o o. • • • • ••. • • • • • • • • •-• " RESP0.NDEN1' RU LI NG MREMA 1 JUDGE Those two applicants, to-wit, Ayubu James and Po.ulo Mbuyo. 1 were e appellants in Civil Appeal No. 133/1993' On 22/2/2000 this court ( Nchalla 1 J •) made the following order, quoting the very words: d· , •· 11 0rder; This is a 1993 ·appeal. The appellants have neglected to prosecute their a.ppeoJ .. : _- . ~ •-i For that reason the appeal is struck out ' . for want of prosecution. Order accordingly"• ~ . , ' Following that order the applicants brought this application with a view

• ..
• • . to having te same order set aside and ivith an order to restore the appeal to its normal process of heo.ring. Their reasons are contained in their rffida'Vi t... The respondents~. ll'.lntely, Clement otto·· nnd' Gero.tl' Lerno., filed '· . counter affidavit to oppose the applicntion. , I have rend both the affidavits c.nd hnve had opportunity to hear the parties era.Dy. ! was not convinced with the counter affidnvit of - ' ~ . ; . . . . the respondents because their averments did not addres to the reai ' . . . . . ' : . . . issues in dispute as raised in the A:pplicantst, affidavit. However,, after proper direction from me the respondents gave good and cor.rv1ncing reasons ,;I ' • ~ as to why the application should be disc(':t'ded ond dismiss-ed~' The basic reason why the i:tpplicants brought this application is that on 22/2/2CX>O, at about 8.10 a..m, they nrrived at the civil registry in order to attend the hearing of the appeal ae scheduled. Then when ·- the t:ime was ready one clerk fran civil section called 11 the people who ;f

came to. .a~..nd:nea:ring/ia,r;td .the1 followed "her/him" up in the_·-chambers _ . . ... , .· . . .. ,:. ·'- :- : l ,, . ·.- .. ·. ". : .• : : ·-: ' -' . '· I"' .. i:. where cases were conducted by this court (Mrema, J.). -·That the hearing : . :.,.,,'. of .t..~~ co.se~ befpre the court (in· chambers - Mrema, J .) ended at about;-·· ., ,,." ----- ·.:,-- ......... .'.,f-·.• : '. :•-· -- <· :. .. - ..... '.>.--\ :· .. :<> :-!. . . .. - •. - • .. 12.00. o,•.cock P:!lt _the npplio.nt$ were not call~_d 9 so they had to ask,c •. •. • •• --.:· , .... _ .. -_ • •• .,··. ·:::. 1. _·: .... ----· - •. • . ·•--·-- --~ --- • •, • . • , . the __ '4'rr, a~g te hreabout their cas. The said clerk_ br01rght than .. tq J:he c+e_rk w11:o. nttends Hon. , Ncha.11[1, J • They (the. appl;icants}:- then.· .. -· .... - . - ~ . ,' ' .. :: .. ·. -. -.... ' :- .. . - . . -. . . -- ·. . . lent.,th:3:t the:i.r case was 11 dismissed 11 fr nori-appettranc.e 0 ' At ]iara 8 of their affiaavi t they averred: that they were ·taken to th;· Chambers of Ncruillo.,. J, .... Mc\ .theJ.,earned judg,e i?,dvised them ·to . ,. . . . '·:-· ; , . file ·-eh~ -i~piesent a:ppli·cil:tion· for the sett,itlg aside of the o;; ;_ ·, •••• •: ;. - - .. .:..i _r,· "- -- .:-· ·' .·:,"",- :- own behalf countered that on 22/10/91, i, e 0 prior t,p:/?/2/20po, .t,hey were . ~ ' .•. , .. I•:•··, at .lya Hp-spita+•- . Th: larμed c:fudge _then made an order to the '"effect • ••• • • •- • • • ,, .... '•• ~ ,• •,,:;f•A .. -• f::' ~ ..•• ', !, • r--•.;,• • "!: that the appenl would be heard in terms of section 35 of MCA., i984 oh the account t:ha.t the 1st_ respondent and 1st appeJ"1t11.t could not be served -+-:;.,~ . . ~ . - without undue _ dela_y; JArid, hence the appeal was set for hearing on 22/2/2000 0 _ But on the same da.y the 2nd respondent intimated to the trial .jg~· .. th ... ;'

• . - •"'"; -•-• . the effect th9.t he would be out for six months to attend treame1'it':at. s' KCMC and so he requested the appeal be heard in his a bsence 0 - Both .· '.-_~-- ·\ . the requests were granted and that was in the p;r:-esence of .both· the ~-. ;_ /7 ':: . :-·j_. applicants.· But on 22/2/2000 the -two applicants -in.stead of getting in touch with the same clerk .who. h9.d been attending them before they claimed to have been in touch i th· Mrs, Magabe who attends D3 (Mrema, Jo) whom they had never dee.lt with her before 0 According to the respondent, even if it were true that the applicants did come to court on 22/2/2000 as directd there was no rason at all on their part to skipfrorn meeting one Sekela 1 the bench clerk who attends D2 0 Also tha.t they knew th9.t their trial_. judge was Hon. Nchs.llat J • :;1nd not Hon. Mrema, J19, and, therefore, under

meeting· the trial judge. ·! • know the p~;rson and this_..,sta_te;~t ~s op1plffiE/a···~y-th.,e :-f . .t_4 following: .. , • : :1·-:t_:. '..·· :--ij- . · ~ .:. · ·'.lf:...:,.r-· ... "••••• .. o••• we followed.:hr/him c,•••••.•·--•·•'•11.- =-r·rr. .. the:-cler~ w_as Mrs:.· • · " • ::• • ,,._ :\ '•.:. '. .;•· •:-- ~ • • 0 " '• ' ... ./R:; f',..,·.,. •.,: •, Magabe then tey should -not have used th· w:ra·ve1fe 1 Lbut rather "her." ... . • ~ :" , t . . ~ : . ; t Had they mentioned the name of the clerk in thtifr-;:·aff.idS.:.vi-t .. the clerk· :c, .· .-."•. · .. = ;; ... ,· .,. . . . -- . ·: ': ;' __ •. . would then put to task to file counter· affidavit. to either admit or r • ,_ ... · '.: '·· ! •• •• • • ' •• • .j ••• ~ • .. _ ~ £. .. .- ... : ·. : . . ·. ··\ "\ oppose the allegattgn. . . .. ; ,•;:; : . . ."ti· ...... , :·· .... Thus:, from th)!fcn-egoo.ng_,_ob9r,,yations r·'run:·,;tisf'ii§d thb.t_ ... t.s .... . . ' . t"· ; : ~ .. . . . ,· - .. ... ... . . .. < . . . ; "i• ,_.. . • ~ application is urnneritorio. p:·nd- ac~~~ii::tgly ·I disniss ·1'.t with- c-0s~~•· AT'M.rJANZA: 6/q/2000:· ·•I••••...-. \ - At Mwanza,. 6/6/2000 · ·.;. ;[:. :. · : :: in the presenc·e of the parties. "R/A explained. :;,; ~ • ;-·:, •••. 1· ,_. {.'·~:· ,' ' •.· "• . ,. . ,. JUDCll£ . ' . 'JUDGE·· ·-- . 6/q/000 . :.:-, .. ,i,.• . • • • .•• · .. ... .. · ... ,• .. - .,, .. ,t • • . . :r - ... ······ ., •.:, . .. ;· ·1 .. ·.