Elias Michael vs Saidi Selemani (Civil Revision No. 1 of 1999) [1999] TZHC 77 (27 May 1999)

. , :·,·. ... ~ ~ .. .IN THE HIGH COURT OF. TANZANIA ·• ··::- AT ARUSHA · ..•. ' -~ •. . >: ·.. CIVIL_REVISION.NO. l,l92_ ...... ·· ~ . , .. . . ••• • •• • •• ·APPLICANT •·:- . \ ... . IDt SELEJ1MI_,.· ...... . •••• . : i .... h •'• • .. :.,•I • • '.. t ~ \ • • •• ) • ·:.. ·-)•., • • i -:: . : :·" 'i_ _.: . ·:-:·: . · '-Thia is ari appfieati'~~ filed under the isions of . --; .• . - . @• 79(1) -- !h,e Civil Pro.cedp,::e, Code, 1966, ~ ~~~ion . . . •.•. ' . '. 4 -. '. .. . . . . .. r •• \ :C•: . siit•.t••bi.•n:.•,f!!rf)wox;; y Mft,Ji,apg• l,,arned advocate ·· f"r the applican:t . . Wlltl. :i,t ts :9t too dear to me why the affidavit - i :. i ••: •• -#I, • ;:. , • •: {-::.1- ••, !, :.•,il\•::t-·,, • •i: .. • • • . .,,. 0 . ''! .. • .. : .. cont.ent mysel'f'· at' this·~ itagi; 'te &J.y · ·that 'baieally the applicat itn . t:-.- ;· ... '' · · · 'Tht,. t ,·Riμ.ing/Orer psed by -Honourable District :. ,.·. -;1- ::· ·1'_;'; . .---.: .·;'. • • -.-,q -.!•;i.·:. •;• .·. . :,, • . • • ., , ("' .. ·. , . . .. ,. ,, ... M.tstratie A.;.A.· Shakale·: ct·afed' 11th December, 1998 vide -1'· :t. j,_·:. "; , .- ·. , - :.:',:~ • ''11.:: ·:·· ·- _ .. • • • 1 . · , • ,,_ ~ -·· .· ,. • • . .... , . ' Appl;iqatfon_ Nq. _ 1 .re'latin,g· to Arush~ Disfr'.iet ·c(\IJ.rt at ,. , 1U1lsl1a Ci.v.il-. Ce.,,iNo·. ··:7. of 1998 be· qlfashed and t aside on. grounds relating to aj\ Msertedly exparte . ,_ . ··: . __ ,.. __ .. .'·. ~ . . . ·"" ~ . '' decree for a mattr wich no ~~itten statement-of . .-· i . . : . : . . ' •• , I, defence was ever.filed c:md the applcation having been · · · .. ' •. ,. .' .i:·•·:.:: ·:-~:,i · ·: ~ .-•,'-4,- .: .. ··, .· ': · filed out of timeu. ., ••• ·• • .. 1 .....

2 .... There is no seri.,us dispute that on 2/9/98 "a judgment •in default of filing a written statement of defence" was passed against the res!i9- . \ . It was passed under the provisi•ns.a.f Order VIII Rule 14(1) of 0 f GN 422/9 .. . fn ·:~ ,"attempt at settig asde the said judgni19.t, the • • J • . • :· ,"• .- ' . " •• ' • , ' "' I• • • * ;I, "' ;,,j • ~ .: , • • ' . resi:i,ndent filed an application to that effect. Mr. Mange there-- after filed a notice of objetion to the· application. ·Again it is I ' .. • ' I,•'• .... • • < • ~ I ~ - ... , ' ,,,. • , ·••'f'•' , .. ;, ,,,.,..;-,_,.,_lI• '"rlot too cle·at here" wh;:Mr •. Makange chose to file notice of objection instead of a counter affidavit as rmal practice wou1a hall-& <1eman.ciedi ... ,.': .. _-:·.L.!i.n. the ·<!.f:ro\Mstaricea. • Indeed n provision of law was ;Cited. :t:AJ .show- - the law upon which the Notice was grounded. Anyhow, in.the Natice the District Court was asked to dismiss the applica.t"ion on -the following grounds:- ....... That. the applicatio to set aside an assert.ed warte deree'·is wholly misconcei;ed at law in tliat judgilleit so entel'Ei°d ·•in favour of the rspii,ndent. he.rein,: was in default of filing a written statement, of !iefenc.e .by the Applicant • ; ' fl '·. • • • • • : • • • • •; •' • • ,,:., .I • '• •, I • -~ I .: herei1'i'1'ravuig" be err· duly·· served~ ~ ... :: r: . .. .. ; 2, That ALTERNATIVELY OOWITHOUT PREJUDICE tt the foregoing, I• : • • • t.o\ ·;· • '! . • the :absertedly expa:rte· decree sought to be set aside, having been entered on ·2nd day •f September, i998 the preo!!iertt appli- cation, under the law in currency is h•pelesaly time barredrr~ The.learned District f:iagistrate -considered the preliinary •bjectiln and ove:t'ruled Mr.· Makange.. Hel'lce this a.ppiication which• as earlier stated·, • i . _ ... seekf3 t, have. the Ruling of' the District · Court revised. Messrs. Makange and Aiute Mughwai have appeared for the applicant ·. :.,.ncf . the respondnt respectively• · ln. a" sense., the submission ma.de by :·.1eatnea. counsel are a ·repetition· of what was' earlier· stated before the '•·•·• ••.•. /3 • i .: • ' -~ • .r

. ,., .. , :· '' • • ••• ••• • ·•· ·•✓ District Court,. It will therefore serve. no useful purpoe in repeating . ',' everything tat was said.thereat. It )'lill only suffice to say that, in . ·. . .. , . ! ~ ' .. : .. bl'.'ief, M.r •. Makge has consistently reiterated and_ empha5:ized. the posi.:. · · . . . . . . ,, . . . ' ', ' - '.' ' ' . '. ·- tapn st.ated in the ,,abo,ve. grounds. that ·ar; .the basis of this -application. : . . . . . : .. .. . .. : •. " : . . . . ·: . • ... . -f . ' . . . L:i,kwise Mr. MMhwai has I'eiterat'ed the :plsi.tiqn he ma;i.nt.ained at the ',' • - • .• • .;, _;,•' • • I ' • • •: •, ' ., • ,• ' •' .'• \ • ." !I .• • I .-,is lirnied- •to the three- cases mentioned. .in· :.s ..... 7_9.(...l .. )...,'tte_f,.Th_e..,. ...... C_i_v_i_l :Prced~~~··eode, :1966 ·· xhe sub-sectio~ reclds as . . . . .. follows:- . ( :, ,· ; ·', . "79 (1) . The High Court, may -all for the record of any .c.ase whicl;r. has ben decidect by- a:p.y c(>urt subordina~ to the .. High ~~~rt din hich no appal lies therto, and if su;h sub6diat~ c6urt' appeaTS·:- •,; . •, . ·,. .. ,. .. . ," ·:. ':. ·i: ()_ - t? have exercised jurisditin not vested in it by Law; or th) tb. have "failed ... exercise ; jurisdiction ·se vested; ·or •• ; . "!" ·: 1 ~ • • • ' •• • •. '·.. • ·•i· . : • : : f . : .•· . ·· .. :_ i ·:. ·. •.'. : . . (c) t'-' lla-ve ac'ted in ·the exercise •f its jurisdiction 'ille- .... , ':,· ·,gally--or:·with mi3.terial irregular'it:,:i'. · ·: · . ' . ... -·:,f. •;: ';·:i•i -. ,-'l ,,f•!•., r;.',:_.':!, _';. the High CMfrt .. may make ·su·ch :.rder :i.n. tli~ . caqe as it· :,. · .. :. . ~ ..... -. ;·-:J~ liil~ .,Q~ ,notce,d '.at; on~~: that the above soticm can-.be: -invoked ohly • .. w}:lere -the .. if;lsl.le. involved .is one of· jurisdiction,: i •. e. -tl:ae :irregular or : . ..· --~ .. . .· . ,, . . . . : ' .. . . ...· .~ ! : • , no~-:-;J!:erp.se :o--f.'.- the Scillle;;.i.·c;,r the_ ;illegal assumption lillP-f it._. It has nothing .. ; . . ·. •' .. . . ., '. ' . . ·•: . tj do with conclusions of law ,r :fac;t •. Inj;he -nst(mt' case,· there is . • • ? • ,, l..'' '\ not'hing' serinus _to' pt1ggest that. th_e.re Wets _an irregw.ar exercise or non- -.. _: .,! • ,, • •:: .'.. '. ,:. / ; •, -. ; ' •' . •: : :-: : . • •.! ~ . : . • : . . I •• : • ~ • -· _exercs~ of juri~_dictio:n or· th~ ·i:,Jai p1;surnpt_,i~!l . ..Of .t: same. Indeed, -·::-.:-:·.,~' .. ::·.:: ... . ·.: .. :: .'!·.:·.:·· :··. • .. ~ . ' 14. ·•... t· , .. •..I 1,.· ·, J. : ._. .. '.·::.:.L.:· .... !~~--- : there is no serious dispute tha~ tl:te Distx:-ic-t; Mistrae was P:1-'0perly \

. . ... vested with the necessary jurisdictit-n.to deal with the matter before

• • •• :;ii her. I' . . Wl;?.at appears to be at stake, in the ey_es_ of Mr~ Makange, really, .. ·' :· is the allegation tha~ in the process, she arrive·. at wrong conclusions :; . ' of law. That may e. a f.i:o p.oin;t::. to .. make and/or' argue. · However, so lon as the issue llr-r,.i·n,6t whether or .. not thee wq.5 an irregular er , •. . ,. . i ·: "' nn-r~-ie of .jur.isdiction or.- the. illeg-a:1 assumption o·f the same, · . Mr. Makange'.s argurnen;ti.:,which -certainly·.'·appear, fo be .. attractive, will ~ ' . . . : . ·' . . h·av~; no legs to stand on. In the words of Mustafa~· J. las he then we.e) in Matemba v Yamulinga_ 1968 EA 643 at page 645 · 1 t~ u.• u •••••• 0G it is ' .,, . -~ · '·. sttle 0 d~t where a -court _has jurisdiction :to det'ermine '.: • •• , .·• I • • . • • , ·•. • , • ., 0 iai questi:on. and it determines that question, it cam-.X: . ?" -.: . • .. -... . • ' ##, ... . b<: \ said. that;, t has., act eel . illgru.ly or wit-h-. 1 mat erial t . irregularity because .it has c,ome ,-t·o an erroneous decision on 'a question of fact or. even of law •••••• ,. •• • . l • . .. • :Jt High Court. J.:l,ill., not interfer'e, under this section · mere.iy: b·au·s~~·. a .lowe~ cour.t · ail6wed an application . .. , ·:. ~ . . ... . . . whic,h was barred by lim:j.tat.ign" •. ,. ,,\ . ..... ••:,. • I In the instant;case, the learned District Magistrate a,ted within her :•· jurisdiction in, 0-:;11$ v/ith the 'rnc!ter bfre ii'r.. If in the process, . . . . ·/'' 1·: ~ .J:. she came to ~ wroilg de.cisfori ;on points of ·1aw or. ,f.pt _that would be no . • 1 • . . b.sis for an ord o·f rvision., Inded, if I !!i"-Y aq.d, the' points raised , .' j,t;· , , \ . - ·i, .: . .:: •• ' _\• . • ' '. • ;: 1 • by Mr. Makange ate oneth.at could have bst . been:: properly raised and . i· ' ' - : ' argued n e.n appeal.. But. since this is no.t ~ apeal it wili' be futi.'f .an<i/or ··usbfess. to deili with them here on account of the 1 legal position ., : , • ' • 1 •. ; ' f'.:.!.l l. -~ ' ' •, . ' • ,~ • , • ; _1, ' : • . •r• . • • • I aveistate_above on when ;. . .. ·.· : ' ' . ·exerci'sed by this court .. ' .- ; . ~ · .. ! . . ~ .. \ (;,')Xa_ctly the power qf revisi~? could be ,1' • : I ,f: •' .... '·.:· . Y-et., I .think, :j:t will be useful 1 to. ment;ion one· d°:f:her point. , .. : S,79(1) _can only be invok~d in·u••.H••••~any case.which ha$ been decided

.'I ... 5 iy any'cwrt sbordinat •••••••. ~.:•• (ThlP,hasis added). This presu- ,. pposes that it can be invoked only where he rights and/o obligations of the parties have been adjudicated or decided upon by the subor-· ·0 dinate court. In the instant case, the application is the result bf an interl•cutory order. While it is debatable whether an interlocutory order is tta case decided" the truth still remains that the application the subject of this application is still pending before tpe ·District - Court - and hence there would be no basis for saying that there was a •icase decidedh' to warrant the exercise of this .court•.s power-.of , revision. For the above re¥ons the application•is dismi6sed with costs. ~:./:.,·· ... \ "1;" - .• i-,.: ,;.••· J. H. MSOFFE JUDGE 25/5/99 27/5/99 Coram: W. N. B. Kapaya -DR For Applicant: Absent (served) for Respondent: Absent ( served) b/c; Fides Court: Ruling delivered, DISTRICT REGISTRAR Zl/5/99