Executive Director Allied Cargo Freighters Ltd vs Sylvester Nkumbullah (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1992) [1999] TZHC 266 (20 August 1999)

. ' IN THE,.HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA · MISC. 'CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1992, F:rom. /-1.!_usha District :Court Mj;s-c. C. AWl.NoiJ98) , , EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALLIED CARGO . FJJE;I:GHTERS LTD. .;. Versus - ••• APPELLANT _: .SYLVESTER NKUMBULL:AH .-. • •• • ••• ••• • • • ~ ·. • ,; •,. ·RESroNDENT JUD G .MEN T . A,J,oo~ .. _at the .. record· in Employment' Cause No~' 18/96 of the District _Court of .Arusba, will :.sh.ow: that by 13/6j9i· the plea.ding ,, 1: •• • < ,' I ' • ' • I wer~ _ com,pl;et,e. _,and th~ case· was 'ad-joμriid for hearing on 17/7/97• On· 17 /7 (97. :the _ seues were, Mcordingly 'framed and agreed upon by the _How_ver, fo,r reason-.s ·-that are· well reflected in the record, t was not._,until 26/9/97 that actual 1?:earing of the· ca.se commenced ... ;· . ·. ' . . with the responde11t herein,t:estifying'in support of his case. On that day Mr Ojare learned advocate appeared for the appellant herein and ;, tj :;·· .; •.. • :aetually qμly cross-examined him. In te end, the respondent's e . ~ .... • ... . . ·. · .. we.ti" Clod'•a:fter Mr. Mwaluko learned advocate for the said. respondent .· .• : . . . . .. :· ~ . ~ :· · . ... ~~~ ::: .:, .:: · . -.~ , ·-.·· •~··l·· ... _. - had· duly infored the Court that that was the close of.the plaintiff's r: ,.·

• case~- The ce was, therefo;e, adjou3:ned for defen9e haring on 7/11/97. • I •• ... •. ,• :, I• On this date neither Mr. Ojare nor the defendts (te apP.ellant herein) . .. . . .. . . : appeared. Accoringly Mr. Mwaluko,successfully applied for the matter -t.o. pr69ee'd tci -'Udgmet·.'-· : oh: 2.3/t2/97 · a j~-dmnt was accordingly delivered • ,• • • ~ • ; ' • ' • • • , •, • A •,: • •,,i • • •• • • • in favour'of the· plainti'ff (the respondent herein). On 8/1/98 Mr.Ojare ... i: , ....... ............... • • 0 •• -./2

. , .. ,· .... filed an appJ.ication to h.av~ the judgment, passed on 23/12/97 set ...... : . , .... , .. --=.: .. : ... ;·. : :: - .. ·.. . . . aside.·)._ '11}.1;~t-.¼8:·9.1'.1: .. o/.'-·9-u;i.y ~~a.rd .and·.on 31/'5/99 it was dis- missed and hence this appeal. Essentially, therefore; this is an . . appeal _a.gai,ap i the; r~ fus~ . to· have the . Jdgment .· 0 f 23/12/97 set aside. . .- • • ,•• ; ' • ·t• . I t • • j, •" ~ • It is not an appeal agi.nst t]:i_e judgment of 23/12/97. It is impor• tant to make this distinction becaus .cW.P?.ently the judgm:ent of - .. · :: . . ··: ''.. -< ....... ...:'.-·.ti:;.: ... . ·ii._ • '. ~ · ..... '--. ~ .. :,.!:~ '!. ·:· , •. (.. -,- . . .• • ·._ . .° • . . 23/12/97 was construed by learned Counsel, and the Lower Court for that matter, to be an exparte judgment and hence the aforesaid appli- cation and tbe refu.Etal· t'o have it set aside. Messrs. Ojare and Mwaluko learned advocates for the appellant and·.'th'e re~ e.sp.&- . , cti vely hav .. Jil,o~ written submissions ··in suppo-rt of :their respective :positions. Jn·_,brief, their arguments centre on the..-me.rits or other- . ·• .- wise. of the .refusal to have the so called exparte judgment set aside • . . · .. F_or reasons that -¥ill emerge he·reunder: I do not· 1ntend to address my , mind into the _rtierjts or demerits of·this appeal.· In other words, I do not propose to deal- with· the mer±ts or othc-rwise of the refusal to '·-· have the alleged xpartc judgment set nside. ·rt is c:ommon ground that the application the subject , his .) • appeal was brought under· the provisions o:f Order IX Rule 13(1) of we - - . . . The Rule allows for the setting -...-... . .. aside.of judgtnentsidecreee passed e.xparte. It follows that it cannot apply where a judgment is not passed exp art&. . The crue ial issue here ... is whether the judgm~~t passed on 23/12/97 was exparte. The phrase 11 exp_arte judgment 11 has si.e. been. judiially consi- -. ' . . • ,' . l. : ., . / .. :. ;• t, ~ • . • ~ der:, by, this Co~~ , ... , -.J: ::ws ?Rtifr,~~-~,r,9:f. Mcl<e ,· .J . .-: ( as he then . .. ~ . ' .. ~ .. : . was) ip. the case of Mosh .TextiJ.e_Mills Ltd) v-,_Vost 19.?; LRTtt:,17 ., •,

'., ... 3 - and also by Mwalusanya, J. in Mussa Kissosi v. Tawarida Kilopi ta In'both decisions it Wg hld that an -expart~ judgment .. is one which is given when . . . . . ' .• .. I . . . 'I ... t~~- fi,rst· dal of hearinp• . I~ the s~t -+ heaq i? the presence of both parties and then at the middle of the trie.1 the defendant • • . . . . . . • • : ' . • . ~ ... ' :. •• .. : ' • ~ .: • • • t, ! •. dfat1lt1? to apJ?ar, the tral wh;icl;lyro.eee<is by ttplaintiff alone . . ·'• . '. : . . : . . . " ".: ·. . . ,.· ' . . . . . . . . ·,' . ' . . . . . . . ' is not e_xparte d. the judgml,lt . ha _;will be pas_sed. wll not be ' • : • • • , • • : ': • ' ' • • • • • •• • • • • • ,,_ •· • 1, •, I " • • • • • ~ • •• exparte judgment. In the instant case, there{o_r,t :,the judgment \ ~hich was passed on 23/12/97 was not an experte judgment because it was o_t;:P,?:ss_ed .on the Q_rst dal of hee.rin5. . ' '"·. . It was passed afte:r the-.·defe:qdant 1 .s- default in appearance in the middle of trial. In fact th.e ju~~~~/it .·?.f 23/12/97 was one which fell within the pro- visions of Order.·XVII-,!ule 3 of The Civil Procedure Code, 1966 whieh reads as ,follows:- ..• i. . ( •. ·.:, ••. \ "11.he:r:,. anr; pap ?--. a SJf.t 't.9.- ~~pm_ :ti9J:; has been granted' fails to produce .his evidence, or to eause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further . progress of the suit, 'ror which time has been •·, : · · :fowt, the Court muy, notwithstanding such .. ~•·:·default 1:roeeed to ~ecide the suit forthwith:. (·Emphasis added). • It follows that the suit in Employment Cause No. 18/96 of the District Court o.f ·Ar,ush_a was decided on 23/12/97 vide the afore- mentioned judgment, and that being the case, the remedy open to the ' , appellant was not to have the judgment set asid·e:~~('.;:.~The '. remedy was to appeal. against the same. It will also follow that si_nce the ap_pli- cation the subject of this judgment was a nullity this appeal will .......... /4

4 ,. •: .. . . !.-. 'c have. no· iegs · to •ste.ild cin. · For the above reasons• the· ·appeal is dismissed but for . . . . .. .·· .. - ·... . reasons different fm those· anvsed by Mr. Mwaluko 9 For the avoidc~· of doubt, subject to . the. Law of Limitation, the appellant is still free to .. appeal. to· this Court against the judgment of 23/12/97. _ Since. th.e dc.cision herein is a result of my own research it is only f.air .,t-hat I make no order as to ·.· costs. ... :::1 ... ! . · .. :-. l<>"''' ...... •'' /. ·:• :/iP:--d{t' J. H •.. MsoFFE·\ .. JUDGE 20/8/99 Deliveed this 20th day of August, .-1999 in, 'the -presence· pf ,;.. ,• Mr~ :,ojare for the appellant and Mr. Mwaluko ·fo~ the respondent. ' . . . . ·-~~--- J. H. :tt.iSOFFE JUDGE· 20/8/99· .. . ..... . I