Bishop Church of Nazarene vs The Principle Labour Officer on Bahalf oj J. Nshinga and Others (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 579 (18 May 2000)

0 ~ Fl l±o,n-0j Ttscbe,tr,;\·· "' ... I :-. . i·,:·.·.: . ,.IN 2~~:J'15-~~¥-; 0 Hrv-: 0 :?t. 1 J.{ .! .. f. :::--,-' · A.T l!BEXi\ :--- 1 ,., ~ ,::-.: • ,. ,~ • , ·;. . : · · · , ·.• . .--·. ' ·- .,,,, )}' :·< '/ : .i .. ,: :·. i . . , : '··. t,; .. 1·--:··))ITS;Q.L,9lv;:J;,3t r¥,-¥El;i __ ,,I:f.tJ1'.l;t:,.:4: ';:".9F ,+9.99 r':;: . . ·, : .. ,. --,. ;! ... - -- ... - - ~ ... ~ ..... - ; I ... ,-: __ . =· . . : ... : ·-- .. -··. '/;: .. ·. .. ~,: ·-· - ., .. T.HE BI-S-,'.9RTJR£tJt}::,N~~~,:r~-~,-:.-•:•:. ,!.:/?:Ii:L.ANT,: __ ·-'.:-;.;-:c•·- Lv- :·. .,,;:· .--~~~~~'(J.; 1:/f.(; ;-;::: .. ·. _., .. ·. T~ .•: . _ .... ':··.,-:-·· · .. ii~ J~~~: 1 J a::~ !Ff1gstikRs l . ; .REs?~s '""/' · " ) ' .

• : • ·.:····~-: .. .. ··:. • !f :: ~~~ .. -::: .:.:;.4:,:·)("i-..,; \ ... }.-2 !''.: . f · ... rl«-u L · ·-r· ~ · -r.<. · ·· rr:·· r u- CK..1NJ A, J •· . . . . (r:, (- =:.;!:= { \ . , This a:pplication is for leave to appeal to the Court of il:ppeal. It is . . .. ,: .::.: ; .. ,-:·;'°'( . . . . . . . . . / supported· ·'15/·the ... affidavi t of ·11Ir. Geofrey U Jonas, a Labour .. , . . . .... :'..! . • ..r ~ .,;: •:. ' .. behalf of the applicants. ]/Ir., mvmkoio/ 1 'ie:-~~ned advocate for the •; •:: r : . -. • • • i.;•·-i ,.' .. applicants, has ubmitted that the affidavit in support ·of he application ls ·a._.nulli t/ in "that it "does ··hot: cmf.orm to: ·order XIX rule 3(1) of ·the Civil ?rocedunf Code. .ac·<'.i'ording to learned- c6'sel the irregularity resides in the verification clause in which the.· jur·at . .depones that:-:--· . .. -• ..... MVhat fs'' .. stated· abdve · is'···true to -·the .ibEfst . . ;.. -of. ·r;iq-r··.J{nowledge and _ _-_bel-ief-.-:" .... : . .- t:· He ci te-s the de·cision _·of ..·t,his _Court ) .. n iihe ,:c_as ·.of :Shi ja .. Ngayila .V ~ yerer:e_ .. -~~~, (HC) _c_v • .App. (Un.reported). Mr.· Jonas is of No;3o of 1993 (Tabora Registry) . . that t rival view that; _case. s disthgui"'.'" shable from the instant case as, unlike in the former case, the :i-erification here is not based on information. So the issue arising from the objection is whe.ther the impugned affidavit is potent.· Now Order nx '.rttle ;)(l) states that:- n (1) Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able"' of'.lii's own-'/ · · · knowledge to prove ~-'.:e•xcl1pt·- oh··:f-nterlocutory; · · ,··. ·

2 applicatj,,or.i,s on which statements of his belief may be admitted .... ,. The first condition, as shown in rule 3(1), on wriich affidavit ' . . evidence is edm.issible is wnere such evidence. as is the case here, is tendered in an interlodu.tory a;;y 1 Yff-cation. The present "' . application is not an interlocut·ory .one; it doffs• not arise from a suit pending q,e,termina.ti.on.. It soeks reliefs a do cision on which is appellablc. In that circumstanc:> the affidavit supporting this applic_atJ_o fails;_the test, as it is qaf<i'.on;,-Jh l5eJJe-f of the

• . ~ ·. :',;.: ·: : deponent. Even if this application was for an interim order, the proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule (3) of Order XIX requires that -he .. :-grounds upon which the belif is based be disclosed. The deponent in the · 'instant matter did not do so. · .. ·• Independently, therefore., each of t.hese ·irrefulari ties is a sufficien_t ground which nullifies the affidavit .that supports ·the application ... _ .. - . I. I'.'Twakol-o has· invited tne to dismiss the application. , Now ' ' ' a: IIt9tter may be dismissed·-only -tf it is determined on the merits. Wher~.,: however, a. civil. matter is u..t€3nable by reason of an irregularity it will not be dismissed.; it will be struck out •. So upon he.:-;ring Mr. Mwakolop lcfrtrne·d advocate, and l\llr. Jonas, ' the application is struck out with costs. Dat.: -18. 5.2000 '·· Coram: .. s1.N. Wmnbura, · DR. For Appellant: i'b:r. Jonas - present .,,.,: ...• .-. '•• JUWE 18.5.2000

For Respondent: Absent C/C: s. Kasubiri 3 - Mr. Mwakyu.sa for respondent - present Ruling delivered in open Chambers this 18th day of May, 2000 at the presence of the appellant end a repres0ntative of the respondents. s• .:l • N. w .. EBmu ?Rni (E.J.) 18.5.2000 Certified true copy of the oricinal. ·,~· .. ·, S , •, J ,.7. c-T)TTO ,, • -i-• • . , •· \l.,·:.:..Ourui t PRM (E.J.) 18 •. 5. 2000

. ~ l. .., \ ! I I ) 1 I ) ) ' I I I j J ';) ) ' ; J ..> ) I ' I ) ":",; 'f f- .. ( . -, ,,,..,!_, t \I. .J 'I ... . -·- ...... ·"' ', J .,. (.~, .:--.,:-••· '.