Saruni Lesilale vs Nanginyi Sumayan (PC Civil Appeal No. 60/99) [2000] TZHC 444 (5 May 2000)

·(_ ...... lj {. · IN" Till] HIGEI COUT OF TANZA.L"IJIA AT AaUSRA (PC) CIVIL APP:JU!.L NO. 60/99 ORI. D/COUR'-J; ARUSI!A CIV,P.37/99 SARD1IT LNSILA.LE •••••••••• .lPELLANT VRS. UAHdnm SUWJAYAN. • • • • • • • • RZSPONDE11T JUDGEMENr E.M.KRJJTAKANGWA 2 J. T_s,,is,:,an··appeal agaist __ the decision of tho Arusha. District Court in _the exercise of its appellate jurisdiption in Ci'\Til appeal Ii~~ 37 oi 1999• In the sai.d appea1, '-the ·:aoondent in this appeal . • i.:-- ..... wae' the .J>-peiJant having been the uhsuCceefdul Plaintiff in tho . .:.:·; :>,!:'· , . . ...... ii(;--- . . . • : . . . trial priy 'court, at Emaotj Arumeru. ·Hor appeal was allowed :'( ' ,., . . ··1(~ !1 .. .. . .. . · by th~ .I>istric-:ti' Oo\1li/ and :hnco. thfs appl. In this appeal,. th0.,appellant has tiled a poti tion of ap:p<;3al:;containing fi. .gro1Jlids of complant __ against the decision of· ~he District Court.· ,1ter · perusii'rg-\ii-:~~cords of the two .• .· . . ,· >.1·_; • .. J.. • •••.• ···1.:·.1·•·. lof\BQUI'ts and exan:ij}-1,g-,b0th 1 • parties, I am satisfied that - -~~ftfQtf·on grci\ind. of appeal number 2 will suffice to dispose · .. ;of-the appeal. This 'fS?ll!ld of; appeal roads as ·follows: : •. ~ . . . /r - : t rJ .. · .. ... . .. ·Tho lonod ·Resident Magistrate violate..itho law of Limitation Act 9 1971 No.10 of 1971. That the appeal in the District court was time barred" It is the contention of tho appellant that since tho primary court judgement was delivered on 26/1/1999 and tho appeal to the , ·• • I ~ · District court was lodged on 8/6/1999 (ie after tho cxpiry.::.of . . ... :. : ,!- .. 134 days)~ tha~ appeal was p~te11tly time_barrcd and ought ,to have been _dismissed by tho District court •. The appellant is not raising _this issue for the _first time in this court. Ho ·had so submi ttod in tho .District Court but was overruled. In overruling the appellant, the learned Rosidont Magistrate was swayed by the sophistry ~f the Respondent heroin . 'Tho Respondent had thus arguods ... - " Tho Respondent {i.e Appellant how) has :oont·ostod the validity of·this appeal. It is my humble submission •••.••.•• /2.

... 2 • that this' appeal is wi. thin t'.b.e legally pre scri bad period. The riotfce 6:f' Appeal, wa~ . .iue,d., qn, .18th FE3bJ;uary, 1999 :·· -- .. -· . ~ • . ' • :,..;······ ' .4· :.: •. - \• •. •. • ._ ... .I ~ " whereby the pr.oceeding an(i judgement was supplied to me d-(ih) y/)999 ·-th~~ .t;h ·appeal .was filcl tefore the ~~J;; '6( 30 :day -;~~ui;;;d y lw for days geed in prepartion of necessary docwnents are axc1-i.ided in c.dtirig of: a.;-1to1; an---~~pef-;;{igit to be filed. 11 The argumet is attractivo.-:::.Roweverj she was i;ying. However~ the appellate acsident magistrate without chocking. :ort:.":too:....°'t-:a -and the ia; ·sc3.llowcd it \ok ba.it and lino llliy do I a;· the .Appoiia.nt (now Respondo1rt;J wa.s lying? :Both the Magistrates' · Co\rrts A.ct- J1984 { tho ActJ a:nd the documents fotirid ·in the' trial ·. ·, <·-,, ; · ::- ,·· I; .. . . , . . . . .. __ , Primary' Courts record' provide me with ari impeccable answer. ;;;•-'-i_ :. Se6tidn' 1 b (1) (11) of the Act which creates a· rigb:t!hf appeal' C , • • '. • • • •·; ,. : •. • • ~ •·> - ' ! • • '. • by any party to a, civil proceeding in a pribtaary cotii't, to the District Courtj does not provide for the issuing and/or Lodging -.--··, ,:,·_ i-..;.. :--; . .• . . -. . •' ;·· ,' . : .· . .• . of' n6iice'·of appeal. It only"p:fovides that such 'party may appeal :--., ;---- 1·· - .r--:- ·•· .... (, :. __ . •. · · -.· -., · .. •· ------ .. -.. .-. · - ... - ,· --.- ... - ... _ -· .---- ... . ·tli6re ·:trom-'t'O the District court''for' which tJia' "primary court is 8stabli'shed; 'ft i; ':rJffa{Jr proidd. o'xplici tiy i.ti t:il);-.soct. (3) of the'~"drii~ secti'on '=thlti ::,, ,;, -. ; ":,;:,_, :,. 11 Every appeal to illi.e district court :Shall bo>:lly of etition and shall be filed in tho district court within - thirty days,. aTt6±. ;tho date of thC decision or order ag§,irist which tlie appeal is broutti(emphasis is mined) Nothing more is required of the intending appollant 9 · al though it t jil docs not bar one from obtaining copies of. judgement and proceedings • in order to prepare his_ appeal well. '' J am very much ali v. to tho provi.sions of _ tho Law of Limitation Act;· :i971 (tho Limitation Act) to the effect tat tn,'\ot may allow to be excluded from tho period of limi ta.:ton prescribed for tho l.odging of an- appeal the. period of time requil3i to for obtaining a copy of tho judgement and proceedings. Thi(;>, J1owovcr 1 is subject • . ~ •)• • l •'. :·.: -. - to the court being satisfied , that it was n~cos$fμ'Y for tho ·· ... , . , ... appellant to obtain a copy of either tho judgement.o;r proceedincs or both g vi de s. 19 (3) · and ( 5) • This was not the case hero. The ; ; .. provisions of the law of Limitation apply to appeals of this nature by :virtue of s. 46 of. the Act • .• •. ••. . • /3 : ,. ,.

'\ '"' ·•: ! ~ ' I [ f t / ·' : .. ' .,,. ;_;

• 3 In overruling tho Appellant heroin on the issue of Licitation, tho 10.ai:i:iod Resident l.Iagstrate holdt 11 ·Tho Respondent raised by way of prolicinary point of objection that ho appeal is time barred. Let mo ... . . . . dispose of that first. Tho record shows that judgement was delivered on 26/1/1999. ·The record also shows that the appellant issued a notico of appeal on 18/2/1999, less than 30 days after tho judgement. For reasons that aro ovm in .our court regi..stri·s, a typod copy • of the pr~~eodinr;s and judgement was suppl{od on 31/5/99 aria hence, tho appeal .filed on 8/6/1999. It is thoroforo ·_no c?rr.ect to say tha · tho appaal _ is tirno barred liincc the· notice. was f ilod wi.thit;:i ti'rrio. II - I.'; • • :· h~ ," t ... That· is wb,e!"'P tho good magistrate totally mi'sdirectcd her self both in law and fact, There was~ misdircction.in:law bocaU:so in tho first instance, . ,.,, · as ·already shown,, tho lau doos not r·equiro t!1e issuing and/or filing of notice of appoi· · Secondly, she never_addressod her mind: ems. t4,~ .r?q'4remonts of tho .. law n ,,~~tisfyj.ng · her-self as to •• •• • • • !• wl1c t}1or or. :riqt it was' rioccssa.r.y_ f {) · the. appollan t to obtain a . ~ copy· of- he judgement or prdcoodin_gs-or both. bofot·o:-1op.ging • ' •• ' • ; • f •. . hci---appoal to tho_Distr:i.ct ·court. EV'ori if it·was"nocossary, had t:10 learned mag:i.stretc taken tirtie to .peruse tho· tri.al court's . record sho wpcld have· realized that tho appollet never • ; • •• .• • • .•. ,6 • I •, • ~ ,applied at all ·to be supplied wi tll a. copy of tl::.c proceeding§ ' \ .· .. ' ,' . :' . . . . before tho primary court-but had only applied for and had boon suppli.ed ·~th.a ~opy of. tho priraary c;t. jt;tlgorncnt much earl.pr :than.the appellate nagistrate lod herself to believe. I will elaborate. Thero is no,dispute hero that the trial primary court delivered it ju~~t1ent on .26th January, 1999. Thora is equally .:no dispute that 6n'-28th Ja.1'1:~Y, 1999 tho Respondent wrote to tho trial primary court. r:oquosting· to be supplied with only a copy of tho judgement·'"- in ordor to prepare hor grounds of appeal" to the District court. C.ontrary to tl1c belief of tho learned appellate Resident Magistrate the copy of judgement Has ready by 15th Febri.:ary, 1999. when the sar,10 was supplied to lier·. This is not only ovidoncod by a copy of tho Exchequer Receipt No. 05478582 of tho same day which is in tho court ••••• /4

r - 'f•·•, i': 4 . .::: -.r ·. record. . ·lrii'e ', same has boon confirmed o·r ·'adr.ii ttod · by th0 Respod.ont ).1-er~plf' __ ,before ·.me: ~t ):1~ '-'time of h0ar1ni :t-faiis ppcal. She even . ':f'.'i". pr 0 0lpoli,:7;' .fol?"•··the :-ottrt:!!:-3 inspection, t]1c oriGinal )!}xchequor Rcc:vt; .. ;I.Jo. 05478582 wllich is ii1 har· :possession~ tt 6 c>"cis wi tllout sayj_ne,~ ( .-.1... . . I., • ~ • • • • • •·. tlloref-9;re, tha;:t t;,ir&: 1Bj)6nden\ had a ,COp;f bf' t:10' trial pr :1Aa,ry cm.Tt ·:< ·· jv.cfuornont in hGlT poss·ek~j;on:efs t:i/2/1999~·:· Ifer· appeal to the Dj_strict · :> 1 Qppxt, tllre!ore 5 ouc;1tt ·t; !1vc been ·1ogcd:by. T-tti March, 1999. Tl1e ., .. · appellant }.terein :ws·p<:G'fbtly co:rreci'.iii lli..:i c61tontion that tho . .. . . ( . ,~aj)l)ealj.~.the P,istri,a:b,·coi:.,.r:t w:!iich··was·'fflod -n 8/6/99 was hopelessly ·--: .>. ont ;Of :ti.Qe·J ·, ·k~'<l.- t'w· C,"OOQ -ap°pcllate Magistrate:·:rit misdirected herself' -- ·:. ,·r:. al:10 .,ought- t_cH1ay· di.sni:::ood ,·t!10 app0al ·as 11and.at6rily coomandocl by tho. lawgvide: s.)(i)' of i?1e 'iw of Limftatfon 'Act, 1971. : ~ . ' . . .. ~ . . ~ ~ For t:10 purposes of cor.1_pleting t!le roc_ord I only wish to observe .. 111 ptii:iing· that 't1{--·? calle:ci i,rit~~~::·::f a,111,),9al" dated 18/2/9$ 1r:1e:m . i . . . . ,, . · ! ,. . . ·- ' ~~ . tJ10 Rospondent was already· .in possession of a ·copy of judgencnt was ·'t . . '. .... • : .. ' . . . ~ : .- • -~--- ·: .. ::.: l .... :. ':: ,:: .. · of il.o · 1egl effc.6t- Indeed, apa,;r-j; froo r_cqv.estip.g, ;te Resident \ • ·. ~ ..- . •.. : • i . . . : ' -: ' . ' . ( •. :"· . . • .', . pl ' , ·.: fiigi 1 strite in-chaxe. of -the District __ cour,t." W al~ow. h:r!. to file an .i .•. ip.ifoai; as 1 :i.f she 'haa bocn refued· t -d~ ~~;- :n ,was no;t __ reg_uestj_nc ,, f·or '-fu,hy ··diif else not ~ven a. ~-PY of· th-;i:?,l .. court'.s proceodine;s !·, ·:ai1a./or jliclg,:1~~~t. -i.1at let,;/ u{3ht 0 to hyo,:·;;e gnocd by t~1c ~ ~ ; .. I. j ; ' • . , • ''. • ' ' ', I ' • 1 • ·• ,-,;D:t:st:ridt' court al toi?.h.or ' ' . ./.;· .+ : :=<-:,,r,·; .1 -: . ' '.'. .. ; • -<.A)T ai'd and done" I lir'.e, by allow . t}1;l/'- P,lTflC5"f _ iB- .i,t S entire ~ 7 on 1 · this 'g±-otind ·a.lo~~. T},.c-,_ Di.s'..trict __ erred i;, 1~:rr. in cn:tartaining a11 app!i1'l·1~:.*hihh.jws')aten tly ti- brd~ . 'I'.1' jJj9-gpe_rit:_ f?,f the District .. ' ,:., ·,):,·-·- ·} • • . • . M' • •• :.:.:··· ... ·· .. ..~ i -· -.,;:L.. ..·,'__.: :.:... .,.;,;;.:..;;:, .. ...;..•· ---··•- .. - ....... . ,::s'C!ovi'=t ;.:3.:ti-'-tne :f-avo-:tt Of""''t!fo- Respoii.a.ent is_ .9rp.y nul_li.fid, quashed 0 •,,.,-,,.,Ir., •f. • .;:•. :-:.~~,!-•;.JiJ:,:.,-:,53,,,•.:,'..,::,.••::,.:-,.,.~. a;.cl set·. aide. Th(:) jl1a:;o'm0nt of i:ihe triaf'"ji'r;i.ma.ry c0μr_i;, is restored. ~-- . . : .; ·,r•-t ·':.: __ :_- •. ·:· = . : . . • . .• • .•. t T;w appella..'tlt to have )us costs in. this .9ot1.r'f;. F!,114 the cqurts below. • ., • • : • ,•I•.-,-.• • • f i • i • ·, ,• • ' : • •; " '• • • • ( t\ . • ; : • . • ' • It' is. so Ordered.' .,. .. . ., D.131iver3d -fh cotD..'t :;_n .the presenc~. of ·bo-th parties this 5t;.1 day of nay, -2000 'at :ir~~~ia:.-· • •• 'f'l,:,O . ,•, ·--1.---, . '... . _,,, ...... ., ... s 'I-· •. ~··:., ·.,. .c::::\· ✓ --<> (, ,: ~ RUTAKA.NffiTA JUDGE 5/5/2000 I',· ·.1 .. :-,:·· l I t I l !