Joseph Donati Kessy & Another vs Juma Magembe Ngomani (Civil Case 335 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 33 (2 June 2000)

1. JOSSPH DONATI K5BSY \ # ^ APPLICANT 2 . NEKi’S JOSEPH DONAr r I ) V errcus 'RESPONDENT JXJMA M AGIKBE N G O K A N I .......... ....................................... h l i n . g 3 HEMA J : jLxl^rui ^ ♦ . ,QQQ -pipintiffe Joseph Donat Kessy and Nemesi On 7th September B o _ 3,5/9? a g a l m t K;GIMEE Joseph D o n a t i f x l e d ^ - ^ Beeklllg ^ o n g o th e r, , M GO M I * * 19 - « ^ o c k B S i n « Kinondoni W r f r i . * that the M - l » f ilin g the p la in t on 7th S f l M M 199?, « ” ~ . £ « • < * ‘ Oo. Advocates a lso f i l e d , p l a i n t i f f s th ro w n the s e rv ,c _ , ^ H, Section 68 (C) and (e ) a Chamber «>* ° ™ « L e p r-y in - for temporary injunction againat ■- and 95 of « » c i '’i:L V *o«<tor. C od<> * ' " » ” » ^ ^ p- ^session ,s t R e s p o n d e n t / defendant fr o , evictis , ^ ny W 9 9 ' o f the houses uneer dispute an ^ ^ Defendemt entered appearance Mr. , « a Magembe Ngonsnx . ^ ^ ^ application. He was. prayed for and was gran *» ^ ^ „a, se,t * * . to file his counter r.ffida/i ^ ->n hearing on 9 th November, 1 9 9 9 . #n 9 th UoTernber 1995 the applicants / plaintffs appeared ^ ^ . respondent / defendant did not appeeo. and had n o t ^ e d ^ leaye affidavit as ordered wnereat the Following the applicants/ to argue the a p p l i c a t i o n ^ on - ^ ^ so^ h t plaintiffs submissions the court P ^ against t h e Respondent / Defendan , i- # ^ m l i c ' ^ t s / . . ., 0 tr«irine them from herassing or evicting ,he his authority res & u ?Q Block B Sinza plaintiffs tenants occupying the nouses o &rea pending the determination of the suit filed. Since the .rant of the temporary injunction on 9th ^ , • r tT 1 1 A/-i ?/QQ. 9th February 2000, ptn Apri. case has been m entioned fo u r tim es on 1 ^ .V 9 > , 9 ■ ^ ■ ‘ and tod«y 1 / 6 / 2000 . To day the 1 st respondent / defendant ppe^x ^

• L+ A -bvPr 0 feS? 1 ^orP-o limbo who informed the court ^that he has and advocated b y o ■ - > respondent / defe* since ^ 0 0 accepted to take up the brief of h e 1 st r e s p o n d s / on a a a id b a s i s . «P °n being i n f o l d o f the s t o t t O * o f ,

. • Rp° feSSOr Fimbo p r^ ed f o r f o r exten sion o f time to f i l e a w r itte n statem ent o f d efen ce, a p rayer which was vehem ently r e s is t e d by Hr. Lyimo Reamed advocate fo r the p l a i n t i f f s . Mr. Lyimo argued th a t in term.- o f Order VIE I o f the C i v i l Procedure Code, the d e f e r e n t 's normal tim e to f i l e h i* defen ce is twenty one days ( 21 ) from 14/10/99 when he entered appearance u n less exten sion o f time was g ra n ted . Mr. lyiuio fu rth e r argued th a t in terms o f OrdwP V I I I t.ule 1 and 2 o f xrhe C i v i l Procedure Code as amended by fN 422/94 the cou rt is no lo n g er empevt-r A to es+erd time to f i l e the defence 83 from 6th November 1999. Mr. L y is e th e r e fo r e urged the cou rt to r e j e c t the a p p lic n tio f o r exten sion and proceed e i';h e r to en ter judgment or ord er to p reve the case ex p a rte by o r a l evid en ce under Order V I I I Rule 14 ("■), In has r ig h t o f r e p ly P ro fe s s o r Fimbo w h ile c o n c e d in g 'to Mr. Lyimo’ s argments requ ested the cou rt to use i t s in herent powers in terms o f ~ -~ tion 93 and 95 o f tne C i v i l Procedure Code to gran t the exten sion sought fo r the ends o f ju s t ic e to be met in the case under re fe r e n c e p a r t ic u la r ly takin g in to account th at the defendant is i l l i t e r a t e w ith no means. I t is not in dosp-’ t e t h - t +here ha* been an in o rd in a te d e la y on the p a rt ° f the 1st defendant to f i l e h i , L i t t o n 5 d e m e n t defen ce a f t e r h ^ i n g being s e rv e d w ith the p la in t and upon e n te rin g appearance on 14/10/99, Ih e re has been no s u f f i c i e n t c a u ^ or reason g iv e n fo r the d ela y fo r t h i* court to e x e r c is e e i t h e r - i t s d i . c r e t i o ^ l n ^ r e n t p e e r s under S e c tio n o f the C i v i l Procedure Cede in lin e --.th the argment o f F ro fe s e e r Mgongo Fimbo. On the o th er hand th ere ip the submission by Mr. Lyimo lea rn ed advocate th , in terms' o f Order V I I I I Rules (1 ) , * d ( i i ) c f the C i v i l Pro6edure Code M amended by GN 422/94, fo llo v x n g th is in o rd in a te d e la y th is c o u r t's hands are t ie d from fu rth e r extending the p e rio d to f i l e the defence in q u estion . I a g ree and n ote fu rth e r th at the fo r c e behind the amendment in W 422/94 is to r e s t r i c t th e p e rio d fo r p lea d in gs so th at the m atters under dispu te go to t r i a l e a r l i e r than l a t e r . I am a fr a id the 1st defendant cannot escape the fo r c e in Order V I I I P u le 14 as amended by GN 422/94. A c c o rd in g ly I r e j e c t the p ra y er fo r exten sion o f time to f i l e a defen ce on tie p a rt o f the - i r « t defendant and o rd er th-^t thp r l -in-M -p -p j j. tne ]. l , m t i f f proceed to pove the case exparte a g a in s t the f i r s t defendant. S . IHEM/t JUDGE 2 / 6/2000 CORAHi IHEMA J . P la in t iffs / Applicant } I Z I M 0 P la in t iffs / Applicant $ Defendant / Respondent Prof. Fimbo.