Ezekiel Kapugi vs Said Hatibu (PC Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1997) [2000] TZHC 170 (19 April 2000)

J.T D/R I;EJ SAL!Al•'l" --------· -·-·- PCo CIVIL AP')E_A_L NO. 51/97 VERSUS BUBESHI 1 1f ·I'he applicant Ezekiel Kapugi has filed this 1'1.:?ilication for review in connection wi tb the deci,;;ion I delivered on zl1/Lt/98o ~~\ J 1 • I ~ • ' ,. For a oetter underctand1ng of -uns mati:;er, a historical backgrou:r:'. 1 0 r• , necessaryo Let me explain it. The re·spondent has sued the ap1,ellant in ,)riginal PC Civil Case No. 61/91, claiming a piece of land from the appe1lanto .CL trial. Court awarded the claim 0 On lGt appeal the ai:,ellant lest whereupon he cs.u,e to this courto 'rhe appeal filed in this Court (PC) Civil A:i::,peal No. 46 ·of 192 (Kivukoni Civil )'..ppeal N•. 47 of 91) was summarily rejected bv the ],ate Iv!kude; J, on 18/2/1992., Again the Ga:ne appellant filed a suit againct the came respondent vide PC Ci Jil Case No. 81/97 rremeke, to revocer 1500 cemer°lt blockn or the equivalent thereof ariciw from demolition of a: pellants wall vide TeFieke Civil Caurt Case No. 61/91. The a:i: ' 1 .lant lo.st the claim as well as the appeal to the Distr:i.ct Courto The appellant then filed an apeal to Uiis c·,u:ct - PC Civil Ap:eal No. 51/9'7. I dealt with the appeal where the apJJellants two nain c;rounds were '5:ased on his dissatisfaction with decisions of PC Civil Appeal Ho. 16/92 (by Late 1'-Ikude, J) above and PC Civil App_eal No. 51/97 before this c::mrt. The first appeal concerned thepiece of land awarded to the respondent and t,1rc1 appeal before me concerriecl the recovery 0£ the 1500 brickse I need not repeat 1t1hat I stated in my Jud· ,;,.:,:"·;; I delivered on 24/4/1998.

• 2 - Now the applicant want:S this cc,μrt to review it.s Judgement so that I order compensation of th,:o cashew nut treeo And furth(,,r the:i: only part of the foundation was to be removed and not the whole. v!ith reSl)ect the appeal befo:r-e me concerned t,.,10 i.ssl1e·0 : fi:cst, whet.her the facts in (PC) Mkude, J,were Civil i-l.k'ieal No. 1 E/92 whicn war:; not heardo'n fours the . · on alJ/ with / HOLS 'c Ca.se; and seco,ndly merits by the Late whether th2 trial'court in Primary Court Civil Case No, 81/97 was obligated to lE::<.nd over the ( demolished) bricks tc the claiment in writing. .i\fte.r co11side:dng the l,3sues raiced I came to / -,rounds the conclusion that tho a:;pellants ' . of ap'.eal could not be upheld. filej Di.the :premi;:::es I do not see hov the a::•rlic.s.tion / ! 'merits review ::iy this same courto 'l'he only option 1:1as for the ari:;licant tl) file ;ij_s ap!)eal with the Court of Appeal, which process he started on 30//98 by filinf: a Notice of Ap eaL the applicant Hae engaged in a forum shcp:,:,ing exercise, which in ,ny humble view is an I me qf the due 1 :iroces,s of CourL I decline to grant the ar,pliqacion and .sa,1,> 1.0 0.:i.sri:i,s13ed with costs. Delivered. before the 1e.::::pondent and in ab.sence of the a;_:c1)licant J1JDGE 19/4/2000