Reji s/o Chayoya vs Bilangoye s/o Masela (Misc Civil Appl. No 9 of 1999) [2000] TZHC 440 (20 April 2000)

.... . ..::._l ~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT TABORA MISC CIVIL APPL. NO 9 OF 1999 (OR I G CIVIL CASE NO 111 OF 1994 and ) . (CIVIL APPEAL NO 61 OF 1995 KASULU ) ( DISTRICT COURT .. , . ) RE.JI S/O CHAYOYA ••• ••• • •• VERSUS ••• BILANGOYE S/0 MASELA ••• • •• ••• JUDGMENT MASANCHE, J. • •• APPLICANT • •• RESPONDENT The applican 1 Reji Chayoya, was sued in the primary Court .f .. Kasulu at Kasulu for a r_eturn_of a plot estim::ited to be worth Shs 10,000/=c He was sued by the respondent, one Bilangoye Maselae The applicant won the casee The respondent then appealed to the District Court of Kasulu at Kasulu. Here, before Kubezya DM, he won the case, and that wr5 15n 15/9/95. In other _words, the district Court reversed the decision of the primary Court. Now, after that judgment was read, the applicant, Reji Chayoya, did nothing. It was not until 12/7/99 that the applicant came to open a file in the High Court of Tanzania Tabpra. He opened a file by filing an applicatien for a revision of his case. He admits being aware of judgment delivered by Mr Kubezya DM, for, summons had been served on \ him to attend to the reading of judgment. The applicant's applicatien for a revisien is, obviusly ill ~onceiverl.. He must certainly have been ,~irongly advised • ..

.. ; • l .f• , I· , MISC• CIVIL APPL. NO 9/99 2 Time for filing such an application, or for the appeal itself is well passed. He is talking about a judgment delivered almost five years ae•• The affidavit of the applicant reads in part that: " The respendent is using the judgment and in fact ' he has applied' for execution in the primary Court and he is in the process of evicting my family from the heuse I lMlilt on the Jl!l•t in dispute" •t" Well, I can see the predicament •f the applicant. If the respondent has won his appeal in the District Court, t•r sure, he would- have to apply to execute the district C..urt judgmehte This application ·for a revisien is not tenable at law It .. is struck out. It is struck out with costs •. J.E.c. JU'OOE At Taber=a 20th April "' 2000 Applicant: present in present •