Naftal Laizer vs Loliondo Farm Ltd and Another (Misc. Civil Revision No. 58 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 430 (17 September 1999)

_J • • IN THE HIGH C'.OURT OF TANZANIA- . • . . • .... : . - ... . . ·· ., '. ,..;_j... . \ MISC. CIVIL REVISON ?JO. 19 NJl.FT.JJ, I,AJZFiR ..... .- . • •. •. • •••

• Versus - · (1) LOLIONDO FARM LTD. (2) N.1.c, LTD ....... __ .... •• ••• • • • . ·• . • •• RESFONDENT •· •'' . .R 'U 'l, I N G ..... ________ _ ......... , ... j_sOF.FE 1 . J4. 11 .-~ ..... T~ ios ~ of those ~~ ,,,rb:~ .should. ~ lla,v~ been -<·91:hf :- --i~:-bd1. 5,tt--r.=1&t.k Re.,-,jnt Magi&.Ua.~! Co1.lrt of Arusha in Civil No-., jfi.,J. dN-ed a'99, 2")/?./99 -end: -9 for "I'efuaug:fgt;dili ~ ~ 1 the second respot:ler1t -f?r !:}.is non-sppearan thol.26h du1;¥ served"• /vt, .usual the .application .. i supported by the ,appl:t• s ai'fidav;it., ~ look at the record. will show that th~- appl:tfation has no merit fcsr .the:"following- re·as'ons :-· [ir~ .. -- }'.he,re :is. nothing. t·o show that the. appli--t· qr applied fo·-. and was refused an order for exp~~te,. judgment;, The appliant should know . that the Court could not enter en exparte judgment in the absente of an application to the.t effect. 22/..£!1d, the effect of the above point is tha so far no exparte jdg- ment woo: given. In othe words, no decision has en been given by the trial Court to warrant an order for revisiOllt. To be spefifil, no matter has since be_en determn~.•: :;Si.nee no· matt.er has :·sinte ·been determined it ·will follo¥ that so far there is na error material t;o the •• • • merit,s oJ th.:,__gse to warrant an ord.er in revieion, Inde~.d:~ 'f-0t· this IJ.: • . '.

• : ' J .. ... Court to invoke the provisions o'f ..ti.lt_(l),...(El of -e Mal;,j.1::.§!.t_-• .£<?¥.x:i:..§..l2.h. ... !2.-.it there. has to- -he .a.tter !!§:te,Elllin,?g cmd an ,er,o .. r_.. ·-'i!-.. material to the mer;its '.?ft'he··c;i.se. · -In the. instant case both (i) ,A· . •,;,'; . · .. end. \i~) ... he Ilo.~ been met to warrant the Order sought • . , .• •'-t'•bA .• .•·: ...... 1 : I ... I, ...... , ... , ••·.-.: ~ .•• '·:.- !ti!:<!'- it is JJO't tlrit tha'.t the second respondent defaulted 8ppearence on 1 the three dGys mentioned. On 23/2/99 and 27 /4/99 there is ',1 • • ' ••• .-: ~ . '. t I· . • • ¥ ( ' \ • :-, ,. • "·' ' :,">•.record that he· was· 3;eprescmted by Mr11 Ngalo and. fn Lew,·.ithis was good a.ppe ara?J.Ce,. r.tE:.L as correctly argued by Mr. Umbulla learned advocate for the 2nd res:poudent,. e-ven the. ,ve.t'i.fieation <;ll:lsf in the affid.atti.t ;.s de.fe- ctive 'for fr.ilure to disclose the name of the Lawyer._..' · · .. _ .. _;," . .-:,; .. ·,.. . .,. , .... .. . .... · ... !.-.-"· .. •·· ,· .. · .:~ft-· , :'< ,_;;-j _ "1:: .the, t.ibove""tes .the applif.etion, is . .A,:i aj.4 wit,,h. ·,.' c.os·!-r's . .[;{""Ji. ,:7~·i~',.;: . .-~~ ,, . . •.· .... ; .. ,. ·.. . .·, .• ,. -•.i,...,. . . · . __ Sl.t • . . _ .. . '. . ·. a,:..-~, •• ""~~ ,t; : ., •' . .,. JUDGE

 ,. 
 .... ... .... .... •\, 
 17/9/99 
Delivered this 17th day of September, 1999 in the presorite of the 
 , . · appli'eail\ · ~d ;Mr,, Ull)bμllc. a.dvoeate for the 2nd respond~nt •. 
 ' ' r. ... : ,:·•:' 
 J. H, M.sOFFE 
 ~~]£ 
 17/9/99 
I hereby. e~rtify this to be a true copy of the Original •. 
. ·, . 
 Ir;-\ .. \, 
 . ,J .. -,-~ 
 /1.g-. •· DISTRICi RJi:GI.STRJ.R 
... •,• 
 .. ' .. 
 '· 
 . j 
.. ,_. 
 • 
 ., ..,..