africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1999] TZHC 158Tanzania

A.R Firin vs Commissioner for Customs (Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 32 of 1996) [1999] TZHC 158 (29 April 1999)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

C:aIPZTA, J. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE N0.32/1996 AO RO FIRIN O o o o o O O O O O • o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o G O .APPLICANT Versus COMMISSIONER FOR CUSTOMS 0•00000•00000000•0 RESPONDENT RULING Tte applicant, AoA, Firin, has filed this application for leave to apply for orders of Certiorari and Mandamus. The respondent, the Commissioner for Customs, filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the application. The applicant then raised a preliminary objections on a point of law, namely, that the affidavit is bad in laws for lack of proper attestation and for lack of proper verificationo I ,: It is certainly true that the deponent said simply that what he deposed to in the counter affidavit was true to the best of his knowledge. But that is not the same thing as giving no source at all for the infor- mation. The deponent has stated that that information is to the best of his knowledge. In the absence of any evidence that the facts deposed to are not in fact of the deponent 1 s own knowledge, an affidavit cannot be faultedo Secondly, it is true that the Commissioner for Oaths did not state that he knew the deponent personally or that the deponent.was identified to him by some person. In the absence of any allegation that the Commissioner for Oaths never knew the deponent, I think that the omission <

/ 2 becomes innocuous. That is the position here: there is no allegatioh that the Commissioner did not ow the deponent. On the basis of the foregoing, I am not persuaded that the counter affidavit is materially defective. In my view, it substantially conforms to the statutory requirements and so can be acted upon. For these reasons the preliminary objection is hereby overruled. Costs shall be in the cause. ·1' I , , .. /l· ' · . .. (' ; I i . -,.t/,.ii B. n;· CHIPETA JUDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers this 29th day of April, 1999, in absence of parties. B. D. ''CHIPETA JUDGE 29/4/1222_

Discussion