Blass Michael vs Saidi Selemani (Civil Revision No. 1 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 428 (27 May 1999)

IN THE HIGH C.OURT OF TANZANlA . ~ · ,;;:, fi •" · r '. • • • •• AT ARUSHA BLASS. MICHABL •• , ••• ••• • ••••• • •• ••• APPLICANT • 1 • ~ Versus - ,• .: .·· " ,,, 'SAIDI SELEMANI -~~.•, ••• =••. :--.,.- ... .. •. ~ .. •p: RJSEOflEENT. ', .. _ .. : . . :,. . '' ... ,.. . : .. ; .. ( ... ! ' : . . . · . ·: ""'"". .. . . . upp_o.rted •bYi c1i;i,~~;t;fiqa_vi.t ·,s.WC?_tn.-.Qy M. •. ange ,learned advocate . ; .... , . - : ... r ,( . . . ., . ... , . . . . . . . . . . ·. . . • •r:·.i•·:"•.i;·. · •.. ·r ,-. :-.c.: ·.::·. • .... • ,:' •.. '. was sworn in by Mr. Makange and not the applicant himselt, I will ,\o:· .. ·.·:('.>-: · .. ii-.;,: _-; ,: , : .... ,,..·:hT.hat":'th~·Ru.1-iilg/0rde~ pacised 'by' Honourable District ;, .. ,_... ,.,,:: -;, ,l!Jlt·.:--·: r.:.::, ·: ., ···, Magistrat'e -A,;·-·-A, Shak4ale d·ate·d· 11th Deeeinb1er•-'.:1998 vide • • ' • • '', 1, • • • • • • • • !1·\·•i <i ';-'•, : .. , ·::.··· ... , t \ · .· ·. Arusha District:•: Court:at. Ar-usha·,Miscellaneou:s' 'Civil . .,·. ::., .... Application NO:,. Felating·· "to Arusha Dif;;rict ·rt at . ,. \ . .'· . ' · • ~ ., .• ,. 'ti JU'Usha .- Ci_yL CP.5e ... No, 7 .,of 199~,: l;>e. ,q~,a6,l'/.,d and a;t '• • \ •'•• I • • • • • ~~de o ,.gf~)Un~~. reJ,.1tti~g .. to., .,,assElrtedly e?Warte .. ecre_e fr,. 1 a a~~.rt }~~ih 170 )f;t"i~~~P .. ~tat.emElJlt.. \·cf defence was ever filed and the application having.-heen filed out of time" • •••••••• /2

,•. • A-·•• • ·:... .. ·.•. •. • . f 2 • ' •. J l 1,. •. •• • .. There is no seri•us dispue that on 2/9/98 ua judgment in default of ': .. : ·· .... filing a written statement of defence•r was passed against the resj:,4t- .,'I,,· . .. ndent. -I{wa:s· p·s·d .der the provisi•ns.;-•f Order VIII Rule 14(1) of The .:Ciil. Pi6,cedur.e Co,ge: gl.96-~ ·as ·ariiended by the relevant provisions. - .

• - .. of @N 4:f?/94; • · In an 'atteinpt. at. setting aside the said judgmut,ithe . . . . . ~ . . ' . • .. •· . " • ,. -.:h .! V••·-- r .:!:',.. •. • , ... · . • , · · ,. , .. ;i ,. 1
• , 'l •• ·:; , · nspondent filed an application to that effect. Mr. Makange there- after filed a notice of objection to the application. Again it is '• ,. . -~ \ . . . . . . . ..• . -~ . • • . . "' ,,,. .. . . . • ' ,·, . ·'--'V.).... not· too clear here why .Mr •.. l".lakange chose to file notice of objection .. :.,_ .......... ··- .. .•· ....... : instead of ·a counter affidavit as ?Ulm,;μ. p.racti,ce would ha»e -d,emand.e4l·} ·•> . ,,; ................... , in the circumstances. . Indeed o provfsion of law was .cited te•",., .. the law upon which the Nptic:e was gro.unded. Anyhow, in the N•:tice the l•, . ·.t . .. · .. District Court was asked to dismiss the apiil.ication. :on·. -th_e following .. ·• ; .. :: .::__.. ... ' ..... : .. - ::: · .. ·. .. ,::.. :.-. . ::. ,. grounds:- "l. · That. the app~~catiot;i . to set aside ·an· asserted exparte · ; .... · d~¢ree" ts· wholly" miscohce'i ved at i;w in tht judgt ,;SO . i . ' . ' entered 'in' fa-iour .. of ·the reis~ndent herein was in .default of, filing. a writt·en sta.temer.it o'f defence by· the Applicant herein having been duly served. - . ·• . .

2. That ALTERNATIVELY ·AND WITHOUT PRFJUDICE t•:·-tlhe foregoing•. . ' . ... . . .. . the azsertedly exparte· ·decree sought to be set aside, havillJ. been entered o~ ·2nd day •f ·,:Septemb.er, 1998 the present appli-. .. cation, under the· law in: currency is h8peJ:esaly time barred"•· . . -The learned District agistr.ate ·ctmsidered the preliminary •b4ectiend ,.· ovenued Mr. Makange- .•. ·:J:Ience this·-application which, as earlier stated,.,'. • r • seeks .t•, l\3:ve the Rulirig of· t.he ·.Dfstrict Court- revised. _ . . Meisrs Makruige·d 'Alute -Mughw~i; ,he appeared for the appl.icant ,i,•· · ... ~dtha· 'respondent ,;e~~~6-iely •. :In. a :ere; "the submission .made by learne'ci counsel are a r;~eti't:i. 1 6n 'of what was earlier stated before the :;. : . i. ~ • • • I ,.' , •. '

. . ..... · I • J , . .. pistr:hct Cour~.• . 1 It ill therefore serve no useful- purpose in repea,ting . everything that. WqS .said theat. · It Will ;only -sμff,ice to ·.say. that, in •• : !. • •• • • .: • •••• • , I • • • bI'?---1=:t.', Mr. ?1akan,g~ has conststently,.reiterated apd_ ph.ajzed..,tlie psi..- . : 1 ,tJ..1:l ~~~ted ~ the above grounds t,hat_ ere ·th;e bi:μ:;i_s of .. t~is, a:p.p.lication. •1r . .,.. LikewisQ Mr; 'Mughwai has .reiterated the ,p.sit;i.o_n-p.e;.,maixitained at the '. '· . . . . . . .· . : . · In ,an a:pp1.i.cation .. fo;r- .-revision. the:High ·:.court'.!s-:·.power to intrfre ;: ·is•· limited-.-to '.the three· ta.ses ment~ned in'.-"s. 9 (1) . . Jr The Civil ·· Pr.tcedu~~ Code,· '1966 ·.l'h~ ~b-section ~~ds as follows:- .. ! ': ',• .. , • • 1 ·.• • . ).,: .. ,,·· . . . . •, ~'79· (1) ·The High ·eourt may call for the record of any case which .. hrui been decided ·by· any ·court -subordinate to the . Higll Court. a,nd in ,.hich no appeal lies thereto, and if ,such spbo:c:dinat_e c.ourt appe,ars :- . . . . .. (a) to'"have f§xercised jurisdiction not vested in it by Law; or .;,ir ... : : t • ' • i'!:. : . . . ·: 1.-:: ! ! . · ... {o) to have failed 1a exercise a jrisdiction.: so vested; ·or ., : ... ·.•.-. . : .. · . . (c) t'-' have ~cted in. the exercise ,.f its jurisdiction ille- ,. · .• ---- -·.:. -: •:-:"'·. ---.t, - .,. '-:'. .... :·: .. ~ ....• J ,·, ·. ~ . ·, gally or with material irregularity,i;, ' • • ·' .' • 'I • • • , t --; .. < ;, : ·.:.:where- ·the·· il!3sue:•·it1volved i.s:·one of jurisdidtion, i.'e. 'tAe irre_gular or . I : .·. ·.' !-·::,·•·non-exeroise·of the .same ♦ --or·.the ·illegal 'assumption .. '-•f·it• It has nothing . .- ~ . . : ,!~. . . • . . . . ~ : .•. ·•· . ,· ·•· .•. t-• do with conclu,g.j_ons "· law •r fact. In the i-nstan:t case, there is . ·, -n9N,ing __ sf;.us· .t9:suggest tlip-t the;r was- irregul- exercise or non- Indeed, there is no· serious dispute that., the District Magistrate was properly .a -\ :--: :. "~ .. :.:&" .... •·•••• .. //4

.. ~ ... · 1_.; .• ~., ... , .......

• .. .. vested with the ecssary jurisdictin to deal with the matter before her. <Jllat appears to be at stake, ib the eyes. of Mr. Makange, really, • I :. • • • • :,: ' • •, • ~ • ;: : • ' :•,:.,_ :•• : • ; ,, • I" ' • ,• • •: ~ .. • is the aj.legation' that in the process, she arriv6d at wrong conclusions ,·,·· .•;: _._1 : . ..; ,•, ,·. ... . . :-· of lw. That ll)ay be a fine point to make and/or argue. However, so ',-.· •. ,.; y ' . : . ; . > ' . ,;, long as the issue here is net whether or· ·not there was an irregular •r n1n-ex_ercise. 9 f jur_isdiction or the illegal asswnption <;>f the same; . i . ·,.,,' . : . · .. ' -· ' .. : •. ··.' '.'. • . . •: . . . . . · .. Mr. Makange's arguments, which certainly appear to be attractive, will have no legs.to stand on. In the words of ustafa, Jo (85 he tht-.a ffl!l5 . ,• ~ ' in Mateba -~ Yamuling~·1968 EA 643 at page ·645 ·H ..... n ... • ... it is ... . =· · ..... ,j:: -": . . '.. . . Ai •• :· .. ·'• ;rt: . • 'settled that where a <:ourt has juz:i-sciiction to determine -- .. :a question· and· it- .d.etermtns .. H~g_μestion,• )_t cannot be sad-,at it has acted iliegiy or with material . : __ iregl,ity because it has come to an erroneous ' ' -·. . ; : . '1 • decisii:m on a question of fact or even of law.· •••••••• •': . . .... . ... · ' . ~ .,,,_, ,F· , : ·jlYHigh Co.ur.tc,i;;],l po interfere. under this section merely because a lower court allowed an application · which ~~ bred by . ._ limitet.iontf.· · . . . . : .. · .... - .. the i_nptan1- case;,- the ;learned_ .-District Magistrate a,ed within· 'her . ·. ..,.. . .. -i ~ .. ·· .· .-jμri'edit.ion in dealing_with J;he~-.matter i:>~fore her.· If in the process,· . . ' . ~ . . ~. •: . .- she c· ·to a. wrong dec'isic-n°··on· points of. law or fact that would be no ·.··:·i for an,:•,?='der of •rvisioo./'Irtd~ed, •if I may add, ·the points raised by Mro Makange are ones that c;uld have best been properly raised and I.. ·., ••••• i :··. argued in an appeal. But since this is not an appeal it will be· futile
• .. , , I•.(: •• : I •·1 ' .' f ',: • ' •• • '• . , ·, • • • • •• • • • • • • , · and/or:uelss·· to deal with them here on account of the legal position .. : .. , . . ·; . , . I . I have". ;stated above· on when exactly the po'wer of revision could be ' ·.t '· .•.. •.. ,. ·exercisd by this 1 curt. .,·. ·····. :,•• Yet, I think, it will be useful to mention one other point. ,/ •.• • , '; : • •:• •. • \ • ' I • •. • • •:• .~• :, " S. 79(1} can only be invoked in :t. •·• ••••• any case which has been ·decided· D •' ,; • 115. ·. •• • • e • ✓ .l .

• 5 0 • ,lty any ceurt subordinate.•••• •.•• •·• u (Emphasis adde.d). This presu- • · pposes that it can be invoked only where the rights and/or obligations ef the parties have been adjudicated (')i' decided upon by the subor- dinate court. In the instant case, the application is the result of an interlecutory order. While it is debatable whether an interlocutory order is 0 a case decided" the truth still-remains that the application the subject of this application is still pending before the District Court - and hence there would be no basis for saying that there was a .• 1 case decided 1 i to warrant the excr<:f.se ,of this .c~·•o pcwer .o-f .revision. For the above req.sons the application is disinissed with c"sts. JUOOE / 25/5/99.' 27/5/99 Coram: W. N, B. Kapaya -DR For A~licant: absent (served) For Respondent: Absent (served) b/c: Ficles Court: Ruling delivered. . · .. W. N. B. KAP,WA DISTRICT REGISTRAR Z?/5/99

. . .r .i q.·., i, 6, ;· -~~ ;:~:~- ..... .:·!'•''-: ... " ··~~ '"i,, : .... ! .. ) \ ~ •. (.', '.:~ .· . ;.., ;,, ·,. I. .. , ... .f ·,