Nestor Anatoli Rweyemamu vs Attorney General and Others (Civil Case No. 188 of 1993) [2000] TZHC 154 (11 May 2000)

" ,h&'if;)I/ 1/: IN TEI<~ HIGH. COURT OF TAIL,ANIA CIVIL C,.Ji; NO, ,;g3 OF 1993 :\FPLICANT

1. ,\T'I'OHN'.l::Y GI~NERil.L
2. MINL:?I·d: FOR L J,JDS) • • • • ,, • •
3. MINEX CO. LTD ) ;ULING The applicant company is -Lo thi.:.d defcnrbnt in High Court Civil Case No. 188 of 1993. rL- firs-'.; defondant is the Attorney General and . . . . the second defendant iG the Hir.:i.ic-ter- for Landse The applicant has filed two ., chamber applications under Ord.er VIII Rules 2 a.no. 14 (2) of the Civil Procedure Codeo The first 0118 ,,as under Orc'.er VIII Rule 2 and section 95 of the C was filed on the 24011 .. 94. T'tle prayer in this application was for an order Ht}wt this Honourable Court be pleased to extend time to file \lritten stotement of defence;;, Ii i,_; supported by ;m affidovit affirmed to by a Director of the: a:pplicant, one Sha.bani Sultani Seif o It was schizdu.led fm~ hearine on 2004, 1995 but did not take off on that dateo The s0cond a.pplica.tion i·:as fi10d on 28.8 .. 1995.; This one ha.d an added prayer, namely t.o set aside the courts order for ex-pa.rte proof X. m.-'.l.de in favour of the plaintiff o T'.nis applic8tion was supported by an affidavit sworn to by ,.'\l:}.:ar..der Amani Mugvml.a, learnec,l Ddvocste for the applicant In these proceedings, Mro Lalunga., ·lCB.rned·advocate, appeared for the plaintiff Mro Songoro learned State Attorney for the first a.nd second defendants., I:.1 his submission Mr. Muganda basically adopted the contents of the supporting affid&.vits and added that the applicant was not aware of the fact tho.t an ex-parte order· had been nade and it wa.s only 1;1hen th0 :1.oarned advocate was mstructed to represent the applice.nt that he discoverl1d that there WD.S a:n ex partc order ma.de by the court a3"ainst the applicanto He continued that section 111- ( 1) of the Law of Limita.tion Act allows the court to e:~tend time for good cause. On his part !-t:-., Kalunga, learned advocate for the pleintiff submi tt0d thnt Mr. Scif 1 s affidc3vit doos not specify when the brief ca.se was stolen and when he irianagfd. to obtein a cow of the plaint. ,,oo,/2

2 As a llEttcr of procedure, thi1:-, matter '},,.as caused me considerable enxiety. l1.s stated above, the first q.pj,l::cs-tion ~cts filed on 24.11 0 1994 and this was an application to ex'i:;e:nd t:.m~. to file the written statement of defence by the ,3pplicant. It wa.s sent for h~,-'.lring on 204.1995 but never took off o · On the 280 7 o 1995 Mr :·fog.J:Gda, learned advocate 9 informed tha court as follm-1s - 11 I have ,:lppliC: for extension to file writ cen statement of defence out of tirnoo I am :.::w bc.n;; informed of an order d...J.°t"--3. 19.7.199~ granting leav0 to plaintiff to proceed ex parte against ,I10 third defendant o I ,:i.sk for time, t) <..,.:?ply to sot aside tha.t order n.., Obligingly, the court ordc:re.1 that 9.Il application to ~et. ,~side the "" vi"der of 19., 7 o 1994 should be fil,d ty 7 .,8 .1995., The a-})plicant did not comply with this order. Instead the said application WAS filed in court on. 28.8.1995 vido receipt No. 00-36239 of even date. There is ·no 2pplic'3tion before this court to enlarre the period from 7.8.1995 to 28o8a 1995. · It .Jas Mro Muganda., learned 80.vocci.te fo:c the applicnnt who made th.Gt application on 28.?c1995. In the •,ircumstances, I cannot proceed to consid0r the merits of this application because the10 is none bcfor8 tlie courto It is accordingly or-dcred that this apr:-lication be struck out with- costs as being incompetento H. i{sekela. J·UDGE 2/9/97 Ruling delivered in the pre/3enco of Mro hBlunga .:-, and Mr., Songoro. I certify that this is true JlJl)GE 2/9/97 .,.,:· F .g .;Ko 'tungi DEPUTY REGI:ST.\AR ~1/5/2000