Foya and Others vs Ngido Kiure (Misc. Civil Application No. 73 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 435 (16 November 1999)

. t .. ' . r ·:·. ·- 0 '. ' . IN THE HIGH COURT OF T/1.N,'.ANIA

• . .• AT ' MOST-II MISC. CIVIL APFLIC!\TION tioo· 73' OF 1999 (~~ Civil Appeal No. 6/98) ( c/f II/Court Civil A;,1. 23/<!)5) L, FOYA TkZ •: ) ;- 2o D r_sws MQHAMED) 0 • •• ''APPJ ,]'.CANTS 3o HAHADI SHAURI._} ' - Versus NGIDO KIURE NGIDO 0. • • HES:r-ONDENT RU.LING . , ... ' •• This is an appliGation: ·for reviewing the judc;ement of tp.e learned PrincipaJ. Hesident Nagistr.?.te 'Ext·y'rli:>r1 ,Turjl',ci, +.i"-"; M:::-s~ R. M 0 Rweyemamu, in (PC) Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1998 which was delj,.yered .on· 18/5/1998 in the Resident Magistrate, at Hoshi. The applic2.tion has been br.ough·(1S'y th'~ /ni;; applicants who were the appellants in the ;: __ fo·eu1eritioaed appeal, to witiF?!§l_ J'.Z. Dismass Mohamed and Hamadi Sha 1 .1ri~ 1-J.er(;inafter" i-eferred to as t1:*!:• ?,st, 2nd and 3rd applicants, respectively. The r0s:;;.ondent is one Ngido Kiure Ngidoo 'lbe application has . ' . , been brought undr O:i:Ci.er CI.X!I ru~~ 1 -;·{!-.t.<a). ·o the Civil Procedure Code, · 66 .. ·.i:c '!.:.:, ,- 1 ... ·.-,,·1.··-· . 19 . · . I ...• ,, . ··· . ! . :.., . '" ':;~~.: \• . • .• ,.,.;r• . At the hearing of this application the lstC.ftpplicant tendered a document which .,he said is authority (Povier of Attorney) from the other two applicants clohing him _with power: .. to- appei3-r and: pros,ecute the application for them l.. As, h_ document '''ft.s'.'?rrJ.1? ·ttested 15y the three applica.n',;.s :;:: .;J, • ..,edeo cnat pra,r.:t;c:llqwing Foya T:z/·appear and prosecute . { .,. . . the application for h_imsr'_f .and .-... ?r, the other· applicaits. · The respondent was not present and by-, do_cnn/a.;d· 7i?li?9,- a_s</ ·piled in the• instant . - . . . --' . proceeding, very clearly ('Ollfirm"qtha..t· Ngido J(iure .-!r,;ido :);$.s. pro1:;;erly . . . - .. - - .. . - .. -·· served, hence his corresj,1ondence to the Distric_: Registrar purporting to -: answer. the applicariti- applica:hion. From. the, same document (dated 7/9/99) . ' : .. , - . the·:. .·. . I observe.1.,tne;.· fo11owini( sta_tement at/'ft:,.~111 9.f .~he .first pa,e or leaf, which .,., ..... -. • • ./. '- t.':,: ~,-' ' • l : ,. -·· . ..,. .... ... ' . O'

... 2 :,Naiornba -18.hakama yako hii Tukufu itakapoona n·in.a- Jiaki na.01ba Wi.ip_e •. to.,1ri:':a ln,ia. a.nuani" hiyo hapo ·juu. :: .. 'l'hat very clearly~ in my openion, confirms that the resjo·1dent did not wish to ap::,ear du_:rine; the hcarb.g ·of ·the applic-9.tiono As I have pointed out earlier on (above) the application is brought under Order XLXII rule l - (1) of the Civil Procdure Gde, 1966.· For the purporse of this Huling the .said I..a-i prov±des as 'follows:- , XLXCI rule 1 -: (l) /ny pespp considering him&lf asr;rieved· (a) . 7 a decr.ee or ordiir ·f;i,-om wllicb an ; '.p.c:, )al _is a1,:J.owd, ·],)vt<'fl"'oin yrli.ich no ~ 11peal has c,en preferred, or (.)· o ~ o O • 0 O o·Cl u • 0,0 u O o e • O o • 0 DO e e O G e O O C, o O. '( not r-e"i:evant here). " and- who, .-from tli.0 discover;s(,?f new important mattc1 ·or eviclnc:hich, after the · execis·e of due diligence, t:i;'fiot within his Jr.nowled_,e C'.:- could not be· rro_d;-u-ced · by 1{ifu a't_ the· time .. when the d<?c_:re .. wtis passed or ·order made, er on account of .,.some mistake of: drror . ... ' . apparent or:i-. the fce of the· record,'· or for any . - . ...: . .. other sufficient-. reaoh, .of· judgemet__..!:2. the court which passed the decree or made ··-·-·-·- .,--- ---· • .- ........ -·.-..,,. - "··- q __ .... _ ..... , ___ _ the order (emphqsis is mine). ~ ue11Ci,- ___ .... - --- ..... -~ - t ·." . ; . It is evidently cle2.r from ·the court I s rec )rds that the jud:ger.Jent .from which fhe instant }:i.pplca,tion is sou::;ht va._s ·.in respect of--Court proceed:i.hgs· before the'-esident Ma 6 israte 1 ·s Collt, at Hoshi:_p-n9- niJt bfqre.·ti1e.High Court~· : ' , .. -:.. . . . -· . . . ,. . . ..,.;: '\ .. · It is not, therefor~, the ,IIigh C.our.t,.which passe,(tp.--d_eqr,ee--Jor· made the ; - .. ' •. ,•: - . 4,: .: · - •. ... . .• - . : ;, , order and fpr. that reason tle ap1;licution for rJi.1cw _qf the 0rder or decree . ... . . . ' . . . - ~ ~ 4 • of the Resident Nasistrate',s __ GQurt coulc'. not be.,fied,beforo :this "9ourt in terms of Order XLXII rule 1 (l)(a) of the Civil Procedure Code,1966.. • 0 3/ ..

3 In the result the application has to be struck·out for·beillg incopetent before this courto Accordingly I struck out the application with direction that the applicantsi'if they so wish, may file the appiication before the competent court and to be heard by a Principal Resident Maisistrat e with Extended Jurisdiction. It is so order'ed and I h1al~e no order for costs.· Delivered at Moshi J1IDGE 16/11/99 Ao Co MREMA JUDGE ~ 16/11/99 • I !I

..., r·- ·--·-1-. ,i