Saruni Lesilale vs Nanginyi Sumayan (PC Civil Appeal No. 60 of 99) [2000] TZHC 216 (5 May 2000)

IIif T.dJJ HI GE! COURT OF TANZANIA (PC) ORI. AT ARUSIIA ··· CIVIL APPF.il.I/NO~ 60/99 . D/COUR'.l' ARUSHA CIT.JiPP.37/9·c;' SAR.UNI LESILALE ••• ~ •· •• ~ ••• ll,J?PELLAlfl' . Uli.IifGilffi SUM/1. Y.fili'·. • • • • • • • • RZSPONDENT ' JUDGEMENI' .:!{::; 2,.:··:-:i~-~ - . :1.=:.: . · ...... . E.M.K. RUTAKANGWA 2 J.,.. ' ;. ·:· p.•·. l -·:) ._, :-.-. .: • .- - • .': --·· · This is .·an appeal. against the deci8:on . .Pf. ·-.t.e-Ar,llSha District ·: :• •• 1 r.---,·: . , ; .... 1.· · _ :·:/:L, · · •·· · . Court .ih tlie ,o:x:er.cise of its appellato jurisdiction in Civil appeal ··, .. - :·.~ :,;,:-:J. -~ ·,c~:• ... ·.. .. . .c,.· · · No. 37 of 199.-• . In the_ said appeal 1 the Rcspodent .in this appeal . . ·,.. f:·,,· ·,:\· ·. : · wa:s·_-the· appellant having been the unsuccessfu.l'Plaintiff in the ' - ·::: q:· .tria:i ·p;~~~y··.·.~~~t, at hoi~ Arume:ru •.. Her ap;peal was allowed by th: Distri~/court and hne thi~ appe:al~ ' ,· .. .:·:·1.·: .. \ : \ · In· this appeal, tb.e. _appela.nt )ias, ;f'iled .: p_eti '.tion o:f . ;. . '..: i· - t : . : . . ... , ·: , . . .. ' .. ' . appeal . rioiitaining five grounds of complain:t, against·. the decision .. gp·tfie :Diatit dot •. Mte; pesirig h.t.;l;'.r,f:.,f, the two· lower courts and examining both parties, I am satisfied that a d9,is,fo11 ·o.h· ·g;r-pund -0f.. app9.l :pumbor 2 m11,,fil-fic·0 to dispose of te,:·:p;el. ·.:; :This ground ;f ppoal.roads as follciws8 ·- •• .i,... •• • • ;.,. - . • •• . r_. ;::· :,• .. , ': __ • -·•••·· ...... ' !rho' 'learned Resident· Ifagis:tratc vf.+,ateJ.thc law of :... ;: :·'.rJ{;i(!) HJ_:-: :_;(,-"Hf ::\ : . • : .. ::;t)q.S .. .,. ', ' ,. . · ···.•.Limitation Act 9 1971 No.10 of 1971.. That th_e appeal in the :Pistrict court wa1;1r 'tj.,!llQ. barred" ', j ;:_: l.1(,(r,:• • !-i;·t~~)l. • - 1 •.' -' :.'.·; ':]-t :'j[bl'.:th:i3:,:,;-onteritit>n''.of :tb.'3: ap:ellant that since tho primary court judgement was deli o:iibd:. ori 26/1/1999 · and' the appeal to the District court was· 1odgecf on :8/6/1999. ( ie a.ftr· .tll~ e~iry of 134 days), that appeal was.patently time barred and ought.to have been dismissed by the District court. <· The appellant is.not raising this issue for the first time in this court. He had so submitted in the District Court but was overruled. In overruling.the appellant,? the .. lcarned Resident Magistrate was sway:d by the sophistry of the Respondent herein -The Respondent had.thus arguods " The Respondent ( i. e Appellant now) has pontosto(i''·'tlie validity _qf, ,~his appeal. It is my humble submission ., •••••• /2

.... . - . . • ; .. . :) . ' J - . that thi:ei appeal is within the legally prescribed period. The nti.ce of, Appeal was issued )on 18th February, 1999 whereby he·<pr()cecling and jugement was supplied to rae on (ic). May. ,1.9.9.9, .. j;11us th~ a;ppefai s filed ~~f_6fie he ... elps; of 30 days required by i"aw for days used in • ; ·•••• .-- • .! .• . preparation of !(eccssary doceifts a.re excluded in.; --- . ·-oouritig-- / ~~~s· vhioh an apeai ought to be ti1?·ci,." 0 . •' . . The argument is a:ttrattrv6.-,-:Howver, she. was lyingi H9wevc±~ the appellate Resident magi,strate without clicki~~::Oh_ the /cits and 'tho law ' swallowed. . it :1o_k b:it arid lino. Uby ·a:o ! s§ the . . AppollEl.lit (rfow. Rospond.011t). #a lying? Both tll~ l•1a~·t.ttesi . . ... -. i: .. ·-··· ·: . . ., ., . '· . . . ~ . . ' . . ·. Courts Act, 1984 ( tho Act.) and tho documents found in :tb.d trial . " . . . . . .. . . . .. >. I • . ' • :. . . . ·. . ; . - ; Primary Courts record provide me with an.impeccable fulsw6N Secti6n 20 (1t(b} '6f ihe .Act which. qreata a right. of appeal by any ~~rty tQ'\i civil proceeding in a prmmary doUI't, -to the <' ' • - · District Court; does not provide for the issui,rig;d/or Lodging of notice· of appeal. It onl ;provides: that ·,uch party. ma.y appeal i _- :there fr6ni" to :the District court for wh;ich tlto. pimary court is established~ . it· is fu'.rt1or provided .9JC:Plic tly .;n. susect. (3) . . .. '-- :. ·' : .'. ;· .. [J •:: ;i_, . .. .. ':. ·ofl 'thtf ·'same sec ti on that g 11 W_v~-;r;-y appeal to.L :the-·- ai s:trfc t . court . shai1 ba . by of petition and shall bG filed in tho districi c2urt

• ,.: , . · .... :·~ ;· ' .. ; ';·:-:,'I.. 2. .!. >; i' : wi thiri'' tliirt.Y da;ys a.f-:t;or tho date of tlic docis1'on r :, ) .i .• , .. ,; or order aga:Cntwhich the appeal is b:rout 11 (,<l.mphasis is mined) Nothing inoro is_ required of the. intending appcllan't; ·a.1 though it docs not bar o:ne from obtaining copies of judgement'and'proceedi11gs in order to prepare his appel ·well. I am very much alive to tho provisions of tlio Law .ot::Li.mi tation Act,: 1971 ( tho Limitation Act) to tho effect that the court may allow to be excluded from tho period of limi ts.tion proscribed for tho lodging of an _appeal tho period of time r0quisi to ifor obtaining ·a copy of tho judgement and proceedings. This, howovcr 9 is subject to the court being satisfied i that it was necessary :fol' tho appellant to obtain a copy of either the judgement·or proceedings or bothg vide s.· 19 (3) and(5). This was not tho 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 3 In overruling tho Appellant herein :on the fssuo of Limitation, tho learned Rosi)lont I,Iagistrate heldi: Tho Respondent raised by way of proliminar, point of objection that tho appeal is timo barred. Let mo dispose of that first. Tho record shows that judgement was delivorod.on 26/1/999. Tho record also shows that tho appellant i·ssuod a notice -of apol on 1/2/1999, less than 30 d.ays after tho judgomont. For reasons ,that. are knoim in our court registries 9 ·a typed copy :\of th0 proceedings and judgement w~s· supplied on 31/5/99 ·· and her+ce, tho appeal filed on 8/6/1999. It is therefore '. ~ •. ' .

not correct to say that tho appeal_ is time barred since ·.·:: · te- notice was' filed ~ thin tmc.·(" j'' Tlla't is wb.cro tho good magistrate totally misdirected her self both in ·1aw and fact •... There was a misdirqqtion in law booauso in tho first instance, as already_ shown, tho lai-i; -docs not require t:10 i:s°suing and/or filing o(no:t_ice of apl)oal. Secondly, she nover ad.dressed her mind, 0~ tho. reguiroments of tho law on, .satisfying herself as to whether or not it was nocc;issary for the appellant· 'to 6 btain a . copy of tho judg-omont or procoedings or both· before lbd.ging her appeal to tho :Oistrj_9.t court. i - ·\ Biron if it was' nocdssary, had tl10 loarnod magi stra to taken t.ime .to· peruse · the · trial court I s • i •• • ,· ...... ,•:: .::· :1 { ,'. . ~ ' - . . . : . record she w9uld have roali zed . that . tho appellant· never • •\• I • • ':.< . • . • ' •• . ,!. •! 1• • • . ap:gl~?d at a~l .~o be su;pplied.with•a copy 9f·tho pro:coodinga before tho primar3: cowtbut had.only applied· fcir and had boon supplied with a copy ofc th9 prirJary cou:r:,t jii.dgcmont much oar'.!;ior ,-,·.·,( ·.·i· • -· than .the appellate magistrate led herself to believe. I will elaborate, Thero is no dispute hero that tho trial primary court delivered its judgement on 26th January, 1999. There is equally no dispute that on 28th January, 1999 tho Respondent wrote to tho trial primaxy court roques.ting to bo supplied with only a ' ...... i)j . ·, . copy of tho judgement 11 · i!l:order to prepare hor grounds of appeal" to tho Districi; ·cpurt. Contrary to the belief of the . •. ~ '•, loamed appellate Resident Magistrate the copy of judgement wns ready by 15th Febrnary? 1999 when the same was supplied to her. This is not only evidenced by a copy of the Exchoquor Receipt No. 05478582 of tho same day which is in tho court •.•••• / 4

I, 1· •. 4 . record. The same bas boon conf{4mod ol;';.?.clr.li tt.od: by tho Respond.ant I

• herself boforr m<iFe'.l/q10 tLne of, hearin_g ,this appca.l. She even producody for ·th; c;tti.,-ttG inspoc~~o_n 1 , tI;,o qTi.;inal Exchoq_uor RocGj_prt Ho. 05478582 which is in her possession,. I;t goos without sayi113, ' ~ . . . . i : . . . / '· - t:'J.c;ef6:r6, tha:t tho il¢spondent had ,c:1. copy of t 1 1e trial pr i,aar;y 001.1.:rt : .i1c1.·e;ram1t in_ he:r posr39sion _&} 8 15/2/1999• l{r,)1" appeal to the Distric-t . . . : ' . •,··-: . ' .. 601..i_rt; therefore 5 pug1 t to have bee~ }.ogoq .. by :17•th March 1 1999. Tl"le . . . . ... ,. . , ..... , ., -· . . appellant hrein was p0rfoot1,y' corr,ect ip ;:μ_,::;: contention that tho· a· 11 pca). in.·the D;ist:rict comt whi'ch wa~ :t;';i.locl on 8/6/99 was hopelessly . . .. ._ .. , c~~~,- ou t of tine. Rad t'w coed appellate lfagistra;to not misdirected herself . ' '. 1.. . ':. . .. .l . oho· oμght to .havE:l. \iistrisaod tlle appeal .c;3,:l 1;1ct1datorily coi:1mando0. by tho :law~~~e-.;~~.,3(1) bf t}1e kw :'of Lirr t~t:i,op.: _ _Ac.t, 1971• . i'-< For t.:.1e pu:pposos of completing th1c3 .,r;'}corcl,T only wish to observe ,· .•• ,. '-·, ..• ..,-., • . ' .. . ·., .i · ;-e i{i";asing .. th~\ 't!ie so callect'•,;notie of £1'.P:Q.Gal 11 dated: 18/2/99 wb.011 t;ie Respondent was ahoady ir,i ;possessiob:' of· 'ii ,-copy o·f judgement 1-ras • r., I., .,.yf,no .J:aga.1 ·effe3ct. Incloed, a,paJ."'"~ fror:i'-rcq{l.eting the Resid.ont Hagistrate in-chart;-e of t:J.e Distriqt ·court to· a1:f61i her to file an appeal 5 .as if she haa. 1Jocn refused to do so/snb· as not req_uestj_113 ·;., • ' ;-·. ,: , I for aey: 0 thing else a;pd/ o_;e judgotrien t. not even a copy .of t:e · ·trHtl coui't I s proce0din3s . ... . ·.·. . . /· '( TJ.ia t 10 ttor OU&-1-1 to have been. i@10:S09" b,y t:10 I ·•.' JJi(31il:;:j.ct ·c'burt' j_toe;ct11:o_r,. l ..... .. . . .. , ; . ,All sailt" and. done I horel:Jy,,13,Uow' this apeal ~ i its entirif;jr on ! '. 1.:,;.• ., . .. . . ., . ' . ·:::•. ,!.'.. . ..i. ;. . ·-·. . .-, ·, ·' •. . '. f.:"', . . _thi$ ,grDtml'l';aforie., T:w District ,erred in lmt in entertaining an . ,. : ~ --· . . . ... 1:: ~ ·.1 :, . - . • .•.. a:;;i})Pfl,;l.. which 'was pat~/1tly tiμie b.a:rred. i The j1.:id.ger.1nt, of the District J '-····'. . ... r . :: .. ; L : ·- . . , . .. ·:: ~ .,· . Coi...u;-t; ;in, the favot:.r o:c thq. Respondent is hereby nullif:i,ed, quashed aml .set-,aside ·•:The j11-d;m0n .. t; :th.qi· trifl.l·p1.i1ta.ry'.6:0Jt· is resto;cede . ,t[ i! t::::.I~~ friilcisti;;·:this _courtc.nd 'the' 6ourts below. • (-, i .. :· : • ' 1' of May,. 2000 at Arusha • . ·c;&.'.M.K. RUTI-i.K.ltNffifA
• . JUDGE. ·'· /mm ,,_5/5/2000