Elias Sadira and Others vs Lonyoke Ndoros and Others (Misc. Civil Appl No. 1 of 1998) [1999] TZHC 76 (4 June 1999)

l , AT -ARUSRA ·:.-. - msc: CIV. APPL. No_.-~ i OF- ,199_8_: i; :>. W:f' RC Ci:v .• Appal ~~>-67/97"'¢riginat:f-r~-.:,' __ Monduli Distict Court· Q1:. i~~al 'No~. l/95 c/: •·-·- ngid.o Primary Court Civil:Caae"NOit ·.9 of 1Q96} ELIAS SADIRA FILIPO SADiru ¥,ARKO KALEKU VRS·· IONYOira NDOROS • ..:. ,DEGREE HOID.m VILLAGE CHARMAN (KoMBin'r ·sADIRA.. ... . .- -- - · J! JUDOl.-"i.ENT DEBTORS VILLAGE SECTNr.lRY(EDW.ARD LESOKOI. ·. • . _EJC .... VILLAG£ CT':illRJ,!AN( idmto ·. Id:RSlil 6 "' .. , ' " .... Rl.ft!Nct · ' • ·, " 1 , It; This ruling has. 'been :11ecessitated by a,"p!'e)U.mina.ry objection· on •'• · a point •f' law raised by ¥-ll'.: Ojare iearned counsel ,n-bealf 'of the'· .. :".i;:. Respondent,s. ".L'he obj'ection was resisted, with less· visible oondt:fort:,' . · · by~~• Meri~, leared counsel for the three objectors/Applicants, in these ob jc μen proceedings. The thrust of Mr. Oja.re's o bjeotion · is that tiles, 8bjection Proceedings brt"ught under- Rulef-57, to· 59 ,t,f · " - . the Civil Pr.qdure Code; 1966 (hereinafter to·be-referred to as te Q.P,C) are incompetent in law a.s the attachment has been fully ,, in ', . ' e:x:ecutea.l,the sen$e that the attached properyha.s already peen cliSJ;>osed :"'- by sale by a way .of a. publica .conducte"d by a- cou:i:-t officer. While coneeding to this fact,· Mr. Merirw~ has r~q_uested for a. court ruling n the issue. Since - thi3., .is my d.uty 1 I will riot shirk it. To be sure' I make a. right :~tart, I wiit:'~gi.n b; faithfully ' •. . •-t.· '• reproducing in full the relev~ · porti.,n, of he '·chamber Su.i1lin0:ns drawn and filed by !,'.fr .. Merieyo ·which is ~~p;t~d bJ" one joint a.f'fidavi t •f the three ObjeotorEl. The ~~~; ~ea.d.s as !ollows:.,. . . ./ ,;, . ... , ·. :•,·• • :. \ I •

. · .... 2 n· · W ALL THE P.AB.TlES';:El:mED APPEAR before the 0 "·' ' . ... • ' . .· l!ono-urabie · Judge i tt±rig ufihhambe.r (sic) on the ... d of' i. ~ · i9-;<:, ~ · --t. e.io O:t,o::l.k.or so,on<; t1J._re- ',· \ aftr :whn' the 'Applicants· mat be!'hecU'd upon applica..- tion for: the followingterderlfi...; __ · ·.· :.·t · · ·; · .···,, (a) Th~~ the Respondents are ordered to release •· . .-: ·,j·• 1.'· :.·.-·:.,i: .;·-.;,. . , or co'.mptin!:!ate 52 Leads (sic) of c.attle 1 • w.rpngl,y .. ,.(, . . . . . . ....... ' -, ' : a.tt.ached and sold parsuant to .. a, arrant. of . ~ . . .; : . ·. . . . , . ' . - . . ... ,; Attachment issued. by Honourable Aisha Nyerere Acting District Re.gistrar on 10th December, '1'. '"'1' 1997 and executed by John D. Wyabamb·court ilif;f' on ·'-i}th Decem'ber, · 1997. () lwt Q..i{ 6°f h·:-·Application -·-·~~id by .. _ ·. ;. .J .- ... _., .. ·,•;..fi _,1.i-J:: .. :.. .. :.i.:·, ... ,;: .... ·· .' ::,. ·-:7-; ... the Responaents";'"""''"':+.::',T:'.;:;;.;. .; '-::· ·.c:., ,:: .• .;,, •. ( Jimphasi s is mine) ' As· earlier shown in this ruling this application (objection prooeedings) is lid under rules 57, 58 and 59 of o. 21 of tl1.e Civil Proeedure Cpde, 1966 (the C.P.C) "and any other enabling Provisions ' ... '/. . of the law." Mr~ Herinyo h-as~:peatedly •μiphasized in his oral • ,' , ',,_, , • · ",.'.{ '" - .'1'. .; I' •tt ( ;., •· : : ' · ,..'l ,. submission in resistance to the preliminary -ob~~*;:tha~~J! : ' . . . ' . · .. ,. . --·. other.friabling p?!ov:t:si'ons bf. the· law" he had in. ,pL;·on!.y ;,•95 of t ·h;.. ·c:.·:,..; •. C· .·:· · 1 .,. ,:-1..•. ;,,. ·,; •. ' .. ··.·.·,.·s .... ·.·· ..• ·. .. ... ,. • ., ,. ·,• • ,.. r ., - , . \· ).. -: . ..:.. . . -- .- ·, "." t''i./:·, '.. '· , · 1hilee\5'T a!nd 58,:·.of 0.21 indioate tho pJJinoipa:l PP.;i<=lttyo,, of 1 . ; · 'objaotion \t>r&de·eding-a., ±h ·r.elation t~ -ttac:bnlAt .. of,~ rpl?W:;,;l!l .... .-:· • : . executiori. o:f'' deeiees a.nii .libw· to !3.tiaih ·thaj; ob.ii:tiVEl•'' Ferr. tho, .. 'Take ol _oli,ty.•a.hd: e.asy,efrence. ,I will !'.eprp:r.-e. pell),~~~ounr. ,, They :read·as::ro-llows::. .,.-.. · :; ,·::.:·Li)!":;,···r~ .i"; ,: d . i/. 51:.:b.): ; m{:~ 'ai&' cla.iin is ·pref'effat·ts·,· or ant: objct:i:on is ' .. , .: . ' ·,·< ., .. adE{ to' the ·attachment of {'acy p:rop$;t;f ,a,tta;'ohoo.:, , ,·_· in: the, eX6'tl\limn Gf.: a. decltlee-, 9p. the o(ii , t~~ :,s1:1cl\R?.Perty i.}J.?- 1;::a.le, 10),mc,.tt~~~~e]t -:.•' : -_);lo.,cur,t shll proceed to. ,investgate the olaJ:a ·• - ---,i_.: - t . :,. ·•, • •:· . -- ,t,; ·.'· ·•. ·. . ". . 9'r ()'\1jotion with;. the like power s rega.:rds:_the • "·•,'·';",).' ,° ,.; • J'."•, ~ •, . ,! •: ', l~ ' j •'• ~~••''.) •::,· •• '; e:X:€1,lill.natioij of the claimant or objeqtor and in •"'•~ .:. ' >•• •:- , .:.'•. I •·)t'• :•••'• ,,:!.:i.-'.•;,;•._,.•:,-' •,' ,i ,:.,••, ,all other respects, as.if _he was a. party.,to. · . .. ,·-r ·:·-".-·: : !. ·.r .t.11:, · ·";·:.;.•-.· .•• -...... ,;.-.:.· ,·;.: ,·,:.:.;,:,., the suit: . ,. .. ..,.:·' . ' .. : ·: .;_'; ·.,,;.- •. ·.::f't- '! ,: . :; ·:. .· Provided that no such investigation hall bk made ·.'$::t'j.,:the court considers that the claim tr objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. ( 2) m:iere the property to which the claim or objection applies has been advertised for sale, the co1.rrt crrd.Gning· the· salo maj, Postpone it T''''Y).d;lr1fr

... 5 ... proprt:r whi.qh . be "l'aised "hN With -the-•cx,nseqtlen9e 9f re~~ . . _· 1,. . • · . : . · . _; .. : .J: .. r. L .J • ., • • •'Ill • the. a:-ttached prope::rty. ~ .. ... ' ' · On ·the alternative .prayer for .an order of oompnsation. of.52. ·, (' . • I .. - ·· ' '. . ·'.·.- : I'..:/.'·,.'. . - ' ·. , I , . . : '.. . -liead. M"9_att.ie.,.· it -was. Mr. :<>,tare:s··liumbl aubmiaeion. t ll,:• ·• ._ . ,,;.•'fft°"1"'.,. / . ;. ,-·. . .•. ; ' . :·, ,. 1_· .. • ~ .:- ;_ • • •, :_ • • ' ~ .... - ' • order°'6anricit be. ma.4e iii. .. ap:plioations; o,f this :nature.·. -Ile subrtμ. ted that ·tb.e{r reie¼ ir's \ii th---~~- _:76 · 0,21 •. 'rlfe··: s:i4 re ;rqtids th us: • l ~~o,ty in ;ubliohing o • onμcttg th~ : ;; : ·, ., . moveable property shall vitiate the sale, but !¥'.W-iPOXSQ,U . sustaining MY injury by reason of ,S]-Ch irreari,jy at th l;l~d ,of any ot,he/· person )Ijay ini t1,1te a suit -ga.inst . hi'"fo:t c 0 omponsation cir ti.f. suqh other person 1s•i:l:l~-------•-···-- pw'.cha;er:S for tho recovery of the specific J>;L'OpS3l'Y and fo_r comnstio11 in dfault of such: recovery.''. 'ln r,espoo.ae,, Jfu-. Mor:i.Dyo Visibly m~ 00.- t.¥-s. c to ";. "\ ·• 'f .. 1 rely onS.'95 of the C . .Pd.- to solve the pllgut_·o:r t.ha.;obj&otol,',C,,,,., .::· . ' ':He the:n s'lib®.t.tea_. and·r'iri11 quote him he:-- ... , .. ··· .. :.1: :.,'.,,·;_ .:,·;-, 1 .;.· . ,. ' ' .· . (' . ' 11 )!I.y. u,rd,>'tho Obj;kirs were .faced ¥.ith a v,;Y.,<μfficμ.. :'•,;: ., • sittion ,w4en. tl1e{/01.ui\mt that their cattle -~~d, -pq,on ,. ..:! •• 1 ·1 ,. • . :,- . -d,: .. This ,is bc_aus "the :prosio;n9f:9, .•. 1, ,r. ;42_ .n ,, ., 1ero net_ follie 0 d; '. -:.ford,; if-,-.•; ·.to lqok: a.t . . -. , , , ,:.21, ;l'.° .. !57 -(1}\one '.inds out :tha i "ouj.ec:to~ -.-,tq ; , ·: /, : , ..... :·.-:"•;.;-,. 'I .. ·,. . . bring his . applica tiqn when the property is,: ta_ch4- . • ,·. ": ·r. . . ;In this cJis~ aha ca.itifoi'· the Objectors were ·ata,.cliod , :' ; .I r •.; £' · '. .t., ' •• ' · , · '1·. ·. · .. by the co.tuft Bnoker•: Tha.t. a.ct of attaahmem,;: -b,ri:n:gs the .. ' •'I. : • i •,,! I ' - , .' ,'.:, •• t ' , ,.:appliatiorr, ·vi thin ·the a.inbcl t of 0.21, r,.57, ;; :J ··• . - ~ -. ·· ............. 111••·,····•·-- .... , .... ~ .•. "'' ·: ;" •. , . . - . .1.! , . . .. . . . . ' . Re;gardl'i:ig tlici hsu; of;., oompnsation,-:,i unde:i_.s·tand ·;;Jiat r'6t· · · is;dicrtfonary;becmise it says the···objector IIlay 1riti tut-e' ia. suit, . So' e thought ti proper o. t_i le these Oje6.t-i"iJ'ri,; proceedings 'and· . the:: se include a· :"Pfaye; for compensaJon.,_'; .Tha:t is a11' m,y" tF' In viw Rr ::tno,::c.ie8f · pQ.Si tion 1 ha-ite: ;l.:q;iady. ta.ken on· "the' Powers of the cew:-t. 'coriduc:ting an.·. iriv<istaga tion . under. :rule$ 57' 59: 'of · O. 21;. I am· 1fr fuii..:'concurren,ce with ·t11e su.bm.i"ssiori of MF. :0jo •. ' l• l• I,. : > ,' , , • • • •• ,'. ... ;,::tht ::·th~ -prayer iti:·a. ooetisatiori:· oror .is. mi.sconoei\fedf .,:Tlia.t ... .:" :,. . . .• ... ,:· ·,. - . '.r'\ ... : .• . ··;, ;,';_.: .. · ... ·--- ·,. . . •.· ··.- . ·, ~ can be· Dia.de· by, a :ci;n .. U't, o,f _c-ompetent jurisdictioh, exerciairig· i 1-3 • · ' powers und;,-;i{icf.::~2· ~r}/~r, 76 of 0,.21.;' Until, such time ldi.cln ' ..•. ... /6

C ,-f~~,c. •·'"* s , all).e,n~.e,i -i>F~'.('..;p~,.!1.cL :i:ike ,. t}ie , eur,11ent, .. i.: Indian law. or it is modified to resemble rtll0 ·oo of Ind:i,an c.P.C• (as amended by the Orissa and, -P;a.t)1q1_J:td:(-ji C.ourts}.1ir :un:r.e·servactl.y hold· that this prayer for;SX>111P;2r!~iJ>n. ;).ll"J;cl.1s. ,§7ftb:'55l,is ·•1egall;y ;.;,ntainable and inoe>mpej:ently: ,~~u.ght >l.'o:ider -t40$e"J>r6visio:ns, n0i evin tn1der S,095 ·J ' bequse th~~. ,a.r:e. oth.EfD pl}Ov.;i:si01n iri•.the' :C;.P.C• •providing this remedy • . Thota.Jlleti.•nt to rule JO, as effected by the Orissa and Pa;na lligli. Courts~• wbJoh is. othdrise .. identical w:fth our ro 59• ?as tlf:i.'s farth0r Pr<:rnsion~-:- .. , .::. · 11 . J.'.'e. :the pro:p_erty. has, been, so.ld 1. uoh. orp,.er ·shaJ,.l have •• • • " • . •••' • "• • - . l . the effect of· s?tt:1,g. as.de .. -~~: sc!J,e, ·. a.p.cl .. ;tf' .. h.e , prop0rty has- be"Sn p,urohased by a thir4 party :i.n good·fa.ith,·tb.0 court.may mak,e s:u,ch an order.for his oompehsationby tho deor& ~~¢tar ¢r objector, to· an extont not ·exceeding i : 1?. .1; ,,¼ %. of: :·tic yurchase pric.e· as it· thinks fit.· 11 ··.- Indeed .. t):). ,J.,.7,.6 jy.g.cndment h.as · change& .tlie- character of,. th·se''·p:i'bceed.- ings from being of an ii:;rvos:tigative nature.i:-to that ,6:f'azi,-!e.clju<hoative one and ord,ers ·pa1;1sed·1.:the;r.o. :upon have now' tl1<:;i::.force of.· a. q.eoree,, Coming j;o. the.firs.t,objection by;Mr, Qjaro, to thestvprocoodings, , ' I wi],1 make. :i. t i+tly ,clear ;si;rait,,iaway that I ha.v•· tom1d a lot I ' of merits in.it. :Th0)::end.::obje6t.iV;e ,of 01:3caiion j,rooae-dingstQr investigation Q;f ohl.dJ[)S under:·thel\ie·Tules 1 is ·evenualYLo•an Ord.er raiijil'.lg the •.a:tlachment and rel-eising. tho '. attached property, if successfl . .- _:;:ti; ief. conoedod. by the db-jectors/app'licarits that the attached 5 2 .· b.~ .f cattle w.rich a.re,:the.subject of these proooedings rere _sold on 14/12/l7 ( after. being- emized only a.:dal before).· It goes wi thoμt sa.n.ng, therefo,r.e, . t.hat.:ti1e ta.ngiole object of'. these ·+·. ,,.t,· .:. ·:·.· .. ·r:: i,·~~: • .. i';'. ::.· ,'" .. · .... ,·,:•_'·.. ... · proceedings (Secur;i.ng the possession of :the 52 h0ad. of cattle) is • ', .. ··:·.,.·:•·.;·:. ·or .. ' •,'., ·.c.. ' no :tonger, atblc_ff we specclt: tha,t they are exist:bng in the custody so : ·hands; they re. no J9ngor undor attachment, ·eari'J.y • I ,.• l ' ) ,:. .! .. :•, . , • • .' ; : . : ' ·•traceable. Assuming that we proc.eed .with tho hearing of the . : :· ,·, ;,· .·· ·. : . ·' .. substantive applicatio:n.,Md the objection proceedings or the claina ' . .,. . :· . -·. •: ;' . are allowed tl:!,.ere is. no property. in the hands of. the Res;eondo1rts 1 ,; '.,.:. _$.ic.1t can b~ ·ubject,pf an effeqtive release from attachment o;de under ~~ ,;~ s,uch @ order only hes · the off qct of raising the attJ:unnt:. .. . ... · . . ·.. . and relo~sing the prop_ty ac. to ,.the JX:-~~ssoh of _the objo<:rro:r or.,., •••• .,./7

.. 7 ... lJlt. ana., is ~~ -o a.a lofig ae no: suit ia f'iled under r.:. 62 to establi'sh ::J;~ lri&h t which the 'Jiosing part/ cla;j.s. to have over •• '• ,. • •. .... . . •'. • • ' . . ~ ' ;; . ·, : ' I the property' In the present· case thre is ho ·atta.ch.ineri't · to ;raise. : ·: . . {' .. ' ·i". ·, ,• . ·, '. t.,. and thero nll be no J?rorty to retasa back to, the· cll\i'mants which . - : . ;,-- ' . •. . i'.;. : . . . . '' are in the possession of the 1 -Rcisptilidehts. !l'i tho' li&;h{ p,f t.his oan it be seriously· argt.10d that fur·· Oj~&is• pelimiy .objaotiort. is ._ .. , unsustainable? I. h~;e fourici no autl:.10ri by, be it binding_ .or persuasive, in our country. > ·~~ tie issuo ..... :t, the ii. have ''i.? i1i" back on ' . ,.{ . ' . ,,,.. . ., ·:·•.·.---.- other jurisdictions. -, · I have already shown abov~ tht tho law in India, prior to 1976, -wa.a identical to om: • . Row then re: thse proVisions of :tho C.P·.c • of India applid in similar situations? The answer is provided by . . . . I.. . .· Mulla in his treati,m enti tlod; MULLA ON TUE CO:PE OF CIVIL PROC:JDURE, ACT NO, V OF ~9,08, and: 1f0:,ALI ·in-·~~~ FZ & ~ J.LI's . .O'!VIL PROCJ.ilPIIRE in BRITI-$f:(nmu, .A OOMME:tfl'!RY OJ:T :i.CT V, OF 1908• It is. ommri: grounA. among those distin,g,.rl.sh9i authors that such c-QjectioruJ. or ·claims b:c-ougi:it ,a.ft.el' the' lo.of e,tte,ChGd. :property are i1"c·mJ:1otent. :; · · . On page 96tfof't.:~~ .. @.◊oncf.o.d,ition/oi '.their :book,:.'.1166:0R&J?JJ /J; .AMEUlR-, are making i.t pla:j:n that thee prvi.sions are'"}ierntliv0 and: " do not d~~;riyo a olaimaht ;bf Ma· remcey by suit but· vc hi ~ oto:: ;~~~Kly and s,.mimar;f remedy ♦• 0 :Cf he. ails ·": himself of it ·t10 · court is ·bound in a.proper .. a.so.. . ·- . . ,.. :· .. ., ...... · .. ........... _.: where the clahi is made at a. J2rOJ2Cl' timea tll;e.. is be- . ·- . -. . . . • i- • . . . . . ·.• a . . . !_ore sal'f, to r,la.ko an intUil'Y ·and. o :t)e 00111Pezl~~d ·'. ; . ,· ..... . ... . .. ' . . ., . by _applicp,:t;i9n in. revision t.o do• so, · His rmdi :, ... · /;. • , , • , , · , . , • , , f - · ·' : -~ I' < / b.y suit ·s al.so optional, a. .it he ·does not, ohobse' ·, :· . .. , .. t avaii•'himeif -Of it, a· sa.i~ 11i' givo pim a fes.1-i .:; ,:: . . • -: •. : ,· •. ' : . ·1,. .' ' • ,· • ( . -· ,: oau~ ~ action with a new pe:ribd of liiniatio .. : "(Eo:ptasis is mine}. ~ J ," • '. ; ,:. j l ;

~ They go fartho;t' d a.ffir. th!3.ts . .-.. . . ,. 'ii Tho· cowt•ha.:s to make an•.order'for roleasing tb.Q·prop- ·. . · ·•rt.Y wholl,j :Qa.l'tiali/,'or·>to such, M ont ae-j t thinks . , • 'fit fron attac:.mcnj)i. ·lfue ardor ia pa.ssod a.f.iter invo- , . ,. stigation: of.:.;.the 'clai~-'by/ho, Qbject·or. ItIIl~]__;e · made £8fOJ.'El j:)lt:):, i¥J:ie hs taken pl~!;)e, .- . ..... ~./8 ···- .....

·· ,·•,:._. ··.r.•·.· .:·.:-.-- .. '··' :_, :.--.t-.- .; ,:,• , for upon the sale the a.pplicat:i.dn termnatailJ·ipso. facto •. ll.. ·:,.. ·(emphas-is ia mine), Commenting on these_ provisions MULLA. (OP oi:.t e) eta tes ·as f ollors :- 11 The· Rang,bcin, alcutta, Patna., Lolo;re, , and M adl\rn . ' Bfrart 'High Courts lia.;e h·elrl- tJi.a.t:. 1 .an- application for removal of attachment ·under tb.Js' ·:rule ·oust be made '.betortf the salG even. though the ·sa1ei-has not been confirmed - TJ_lc. Bombay High. OoUl'-:t l).as agreed with this view d has gone further by holding that eifen wli7ere·tJ:i.e application is.made before-the sale an ;••; · •;:'t>rder: under· this rule ·cannot be passed after the ·-, . sale-·'liiiis' 1:lben hold: with the conseqy.ehco 'that rule ·. 63· ·Jcnil<l'>ri6t" apply when the .appli,cation is rejected '. "6,v'fill ,i.o'file'r passed af-r :.t,i; sale ,had been hel The MJtiri{·tTawa:r, Myso:bi and -Rja'is ··than I:Ii--' ,-.· Court'srdiffer and hold ·tha.'t .. an application i~ _ 'cornp°b'terlt after the propert'y .. :has been sold and:-- . ,. ----~· ... ~. · before the decree is. satisfiec1 b.y full .pa.went .. of: · ilhe·°l£ibe. The diffei-ence i:of_ Opinio:ri.- has no,w ben put ''t-o•·a:n:: end by the· new,cla,use (a) ·of ,.the pr·ovis6. ,-· . . It .. " . ..• . •

• to sul:iruie (1) 1
• ·at page; 18'09 :bf.'.Yoltime,II, :J5h . . ,.. ~ 100.:i. tion f1996) •' · ·' · ... ·· . fEm1jhasis is -nnne) .. _ · iJ ·. - Rule 58 (1}-) .. ..e,1lioady.-:..sho.m, !.ovides:.1.Aat no s;;.oh, claim or .....,.. _ _.,..,...;,. ' ···:. objection sha.J::·I'be ontortain. IIWh<=;r?, bs-f·ore '.tho claim is•preferr<0d .or objection is macle, the property_ha.s-Ei.'lre_a.dy been soldo" So ~~y:.this legisia.tive ..act, the stand of the.majority of tll'Indian High 001,,1:rts prevailed, as it u in accord "1-'tli:'lor,ie and fairness.o All-the same, even if one wa; to adopt the stand of the minority ( that is the Yad.ra.s 1 Nagpur, eta High courts) and apply it td tlie· undisputed.;(a:t.§:i,:1:1,,.;_:10 matter under scrutin one 'W'Ould at2:00.c1 of the d.ay ,h9lsf..: t)1-.:t he ·current ·application i.s incompetent. · This is• because th; de..9:i1.Qe has ,already b013n fv.lly satisfied followtng the fu.11 'J)aymen·tr 0f. ,tt!:0. pu:rohase pri ::os. Th.ms is evide:ncecl by

---

,, •'·.,,),':'.:.. .'II •,;./9 •-¥-w,, • • •••{'Jll'••~•- ... ~•f'• -••

• '""' 9 Ann.exture 'A, 'to the oov.rter - affidavit of tlie 2nd Respondent. There is no dispute on the f-&_P.t. tl1a.t the exaot aim of a..--i a.tta.im- hment in execution proceedings is to place t4.e property in the custody of the ·executing oour,t so as to make it easily available for the realization of the decree·. It is e~-c:~ly true to assert that the proceedings envisaged by rules 57 to 59 a.re meant to enable the objector or cia.ima...~t to persuade the court to _raise the attachl.."lent and release the at·t;a,ched property and hand it back to him if he satisfies it that he had some interest in it or was in?()ssess.ion ot· the same (but not in trust for the judgement dobtor)., Once the property attached is sold (and the decree satisfied) then th.eat-ta- ohment lapses and the e:x:ocuting court no longer has any custody over it. In such a situation it will highly :i;>rep-osterous oven to imagine that the court oan issue a release from at-ta.chment order under rule 59• The sale conducted prior to such an order being 1a5uod,11fhol].y s-tuSi"ti:f'ies any effort to make any claim or objootions tmder ru.lcs 57 ~ 59 of 0.21. Su.oh ef:!.'~ts and any investigation, hbwever 1-rell intended it may oe, to be carried out by the dourt ldli be inf1•uctuous, .. It. will i#d.eed only prove to be costly in terms of -Hine rid money to t};l.e claimant/objector and ir+deed an ,;hjustified waste of tho ooUl't' s tiina.. . The Esod thing is that the- genuine cliiitnant or objector is not left helpless or 1ri. thout a remedy ~t lkw, . . · ioants or claimants/Objeetorbn' the position of the Applicants herein, have two rornodies; a summary remedy tmdcr rules 57 to 58 or bringing a ·regular Gui t to establish their title over the attachod (and/or sold) property. In the instant case the summary remedy is not available to them because it has already been overtaken by events (before they even filod this application), They.have now to pursue their .rights throuzh the second aHernative remedy by way of a 1"3gular . suit e:.spgoially no1-r under rule 76. They are so .advised, All said and done 41 I uphold Mr. Oja,ro 1 s preliininary objections, and hold that this aDplication is misoonived and inoompotent. It is accordingly struck out with costs. It is so ordered. Delivered in chancers in the presence of Mr,Merinyo iJf;r the Applicants and Mr. Oja.re for the Respondents this 4th day of June,99 at Arusha •. /mm