Zidi Mgaya vs Rashid Bakari Kandi (Civil Appeal 81 of 1995) [1998] TZHC 2004 (30 December 1998)

IN T H E H I G H C O U R T OF T A N Z A N I A A T DAR ES SAF.AAM (PC) CTVTI. APPRAF. NO. 81 OF 1995 Nori9A n v a o V n 9 / r0in. Kinondoni nNn Civi 1 Appeal No. 46 \9 4 and ori gi na l Kin on do ni P r i m a r y C.nurt Civil. C as e No. 43\94) ZIDI M G A Y A ........ .......... . ........................ A P P L I C A N T w p p q i i q R A S H I D BA KA RI K A N D I ...... . V. . ‘ .................. R E S P O N D E N T kaleorva . t T h i s is an i n t e r e s t i n g a n d a l s o an u n f o r t u n a t e matter. n is u n f o r t u n a t e b e c a u s e it has taken u n n e c e s s a r i l y a long ti me to r e a c h w h e r e it is an d th er e is still a long w a y to go. Tf we t re ad b y w h a t the r e c o r d s tell us in their d u p l i c a t e form, it s t a r t e d in 199 4 b e f o r e the K i n o n d o n i P r i m a r y Court, and it has yet to t e r m i n a t e . Not o n l y that, w h i l e it d i l l y d a l l i e d at the D i s t r i c t C o u r t for no a p p a r e n t and j u s t i f i a b l e reason, w h e n it f i n a l l y c a m e to th e H i g h Court, the r e c o r d s d i s a n p e a r e d t As if this w as no t e no ug h, w h i l e the o r i g i n a t i n g r e c o r d s (to the H i o h C o u r t R e g i s t r y ) s u g g e s t that it cam e by w a y of r e v i s i o n it was e n t e r e d an d r e g i s t e r e d as a Civil A p p e a l (it is e n t i t l e d 'PC C i v i l A p p e a l No. 81 of 1995'). And, fi nally, a loo k at the r e c o r d s a v a i l a b l e (both in s u b s t a n c e and form), l ea ves no on e in d o u b t that the p r o c e e d i n g s and e n s u i n g j u d g e m e n t s \ o r d e r s c a n n o t be s u s t a i n e d . It is i n t e r e s t i n g b e c a u s e b o t h p a r t i e s , r e p r e s e n t e d y l e a r n e d C o u n s e l , front f o r m i d a b l e a r g u m e n t s , w h ic h, if true r a t h e r tha n c l e a n s i n g any, do paint, d a r k l y and s u s p i c i o u s l y c u t t i n g a c r o s s , the H i g h C o u r t Re gi st ry , the p a r t i e s t h e m s e i v e s he D i s t r i c t C o u r t p e r s o n n e l let a l o n e the c o u n s e l t h e m s e l v e s ! 1

I have a l r e a d y indicated that we are anti ng on a record in its " d u p l i c a t e form". This is so bec au se the original P ri ma ry Co ur t and D i s t r i c t Court records in cluding the original chamber su m mo ns and af fi d av it w h i c h brought the matter to the High Court di sa p p ea re d ! Wh at is on record are what are said to be copies of the P r i m a r y Court p r o c e e d i n g s and judgement; a copy of an amended m e m o r a n d u m of appeal to the Dist ri ct Court; un c e r t i f i e d and u n d a t e d c h a m b e r sum mo ns to w h i c h is attached an unda ted though si gn ed a f f i d a v i t both of w hi ch are said to have o r i g i n a t e d the pr e s e n t c as e be fo re the High Court; a copy of the j u d g e - i n ch a r g e ' s m i n u t e in the general file r e - a s s i g n i n g the ma tt er tn me ( o r i g i n a l l y it was assigned to Kyando.. > T . wh o moved on transfer): a copy of the Di s t r i c t Court exp ar te ju dgement dated 10\5\95 w h i c h al lo w e d Rashid Kan di 's (Respondent) appeal against the P r i m a r y C ou rt judgement... and a copy of a revisional order in Cr. R ev is i o n No. 12\94 bet we en the present Re spo nde nt (as a convict) and one M o h a m e d Said Hat ib u wh ic h set aside the co nv i c t i o n and se nt en ce of 6 mon ths i m pr iso nme nt for the o ff en ce of threat.enina violence, w h i c h factor I co nsi der irrelevant in the prese nt matter. The cha mb er summons by Applicant.. Zirli Mgaya. pray for orders, a m o n g others, that, "1. The e x pa rt e d e c i s i o n of the Senior Resident M a g i st ra te , Ms. Kalombola, in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1994 on the 10th May., 1995 be revised. 2. In the alternat ive , the appeal No. 46\94 be heard in te r- pa rt ie s by another Magistrate". R ea so ns in suppo rt of these pray ers are co nta ine d in an affida vit w h i c h al le ge that the appeal should have been s u m ma ri ly reiect.ed for be in g frivolous: that the exp ar te judg em ent was pas sed wh en the A p p l i c a n t ' s Counsel was stuck in mud just 100 yrds away from the court room, and that it is against p r i n c i p l e s of natural jus ti ce to cond emn a per so n unheard. Mr. Mkondya, Advocate, for the Ap pli can t, in his further su bm is sio ns insisted that there was d u bi ou s d e a l i n g s bet we en the Di st ri ct Court and the Res pon de nt 2

for., the latter., in c o m p a n y of his advocate., was seen e n t er in g the M a g i s t r a t e ' s c h a m b e r s w h i l e A p pli ca nt was s t a n d i n g just o ut si de , and w i t h o u t the case h a vin g been ca ll e d out., on ly to come out w i t h an order as to wh e n an e x p a r t e judgement w o u l d be deliver ed . Thi s a t t r a c t e d p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s from Remgalawe, Jun d u & Co. A dv oc at es , to the effe ct that the affida vit is d e f e c t i v e as it w a s not v e r i f i e d and a t te st ed (it will be re c a l l e d that it . was said to be a r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n from the lost doc um e n t s ) : that there is no in di ca t i o n that n e c e s s a r y fees were paid; that it is not clea r as to w h e t h e r the m a t t e r was an appeal or r e v i s i o n (c om pa r i n g the c h am be r summ on s and the w a y the record is entitl ed ); that the a p p l i c a n t should not have a p pl ie d for r e v i s i o n u n d e r s. 3 0 ( 1 )(c), for, that relat es to w h e r e c o u r t s act S U O mo t o but shoul d have acted under s. 4 4 ( 1 H b ) of the M a g i s t r a t e ’s C o ur t Act, No. 2\84; that, as no fees were indicated to have b e e n pa i d by 29\6 \9 5 " g oi ng by the date shown in the ch a m b e r s u m m o n s ___ " (altho ug h the copy of the chamb er summon s on re co rd do e s not i ndi ca te the date and one w o n d e r s w h e r e the l e ar ne d c o u ns e l got 29.6.95!) the a p p l i c a t i o n is time ba rr ed by item 21, Par t III, of the Law of L im it at io n, Act. 1971, whi ch fixes the p e r i o d to o n l y 60 days. On the main su bm i s s i o n the r e s p o n d e n t argu e that it is in co nc ei va bl e that the counsel could s i m p l v re ma i n s t r an d e d just 100 vrds away without inf or mi ng the court w h e n the s c h e d u l e d time for the case struck; that there w e r e t r i a b l e issues in the appeal and that there was no bias on the c o u r t ' s sid e but that, the A p p l i c a n t s failed to enter a p p e a r a n c e ac cordingly. In r e p l y the A p p l i c a n t ' s Counsel insists that, the fees we re pa id and r e c e i p t s we r e in the lost, files; that time shoul d not be c o m p u t e d from 1998 but 1995, and, wonders, as ki n g himself, why the ot h e r p a r t y is c a p i t a l i s i n g on the lost files if they have no k n o w l e d g e of their w h er ea bou ts. 3

All th is s t a r t e d w i t h R a s hi d! K an di (Respon den t) s ui ng u n s u c c e s f n i l y , 7 ,id i M g a y a (Applicant)., at Kinondoni Pr im a r y Court., for p o s s e s s i o n of u n s u r v e v e d p i e c e of land on w h i c h a " K i b a n d a " is erected. The R e s p o n d e n t a p p e a l e d s u c c e s f u l l y be f o r e the Kinondoni D i s t r i c t Co urt, which., in an e x p a r t e j u d g e m e n t set aside the p r i m a r y c o u r t judgement. The A p p l i c a n t (Zidi M g ay a) could not s t o m a c h th is h e n c e the p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n to re vi se the District C o u r t e x p a r t e j u d g e m e nt as per p r a y e r s a l r e a d y qu ot ed above. I ha ve s u m m a r i s e d the h i s t o r y of the ma t t e r and the s u b m i s s i o n s by b o t h p a r t i e s just for clarity., for., r eg ard be ing had to tw o fa ct o r s w h i c h T w i 11 s h o r t l y disnns s, there is no n*ed of g o i n g into the m e r i t s thereof, for, the p r o c e e d i n g s and e n s u i n g judgment.sXorders hav e no feet on w h i c h to stand. " Fir st T s hou ld state, that the we ll e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e in cri minal A p p e a l s "of loss of re cord leads to r e t r i a l " (Rv Abdi M a y and O t h e r s (1948) 1 5 EACA 86; Ha iderail T.akhoo 7-aver (195?.) E.A. 244; Sh a b a n M a t o n d o v R (1969) H C D 57) a p p l i e s as well to Ci v i l A p p e a l s s u f f e r i n g from the same ma laise, as is the pre sent appeal w h o s e facts e s t a b l i s h be yo nd doubt that the r e c or ds got lost or m is pl ac ed . This is so b e c a u s e th er e is no rec ord on w h i c h the ap pe al co urt can ba se its a n a ly si s and d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g the issues r a i s e d b e t w e e n the parties. I sh ou ld go further and state that thi s p r i n c i p l e a p p l ^ ? uta ^ ' ^ s l t u a t l o n R w h e r e t he re are no r e c o r d s at a l l * ^ w h e r e th ose a v a i l a b l e are co pi es w h o s e a u t h e n t i c i t y have not bee n proved. Tn the c as e at ha nd we o n l y ha v e c o p i e s of the p r i m a r y c ou rt p r o c e e d i n g s . Ap ar t from th ese u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d p r i m a r y court p r o c e e d i n g s , (and it s ho ul d be n o t e d that no ne of the Counsel took stock of the p r o c e e d i n g s there, for. A d v o c a t e s d o n' t ap p e a r in p r i m a r y courts) there are no D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s , and, w h i c h are a l l e g e d by the 4

A p p l i c a n t to have been p r e gn an t wi t h bias. As what is being c h a l l e n g e d is an exp ar te judgement of the Dist ri ct Court it is p e r t i n e n t that this court be availed with what actu al ly tra ns pi red , record wise, bef or e the same was entered. There is no o r i g i n a l nor a c opy of the said proceedings. This in itself is d e p l o r a b l y fatal to the p re se nt appeal. T he re is yet another seri ou s defect on r e c o r d . And t h i s is the 2nd factor w hi ch n e c e s s i t a te a retrial. And this would have at t r a c t e d same c o n s e q u e n c e s even if the original records were p r e s e n t . Under Rule 3 of the M a g i s t r a t e ' s courts ( P r i m a r y C o u r t s ) (Judgment of court) Rules, made under S . 71(1) of the M a g i s t r a t e ' s Cou rt Act, No. 2 of 1984, the old sy s te m w h e r e b y at the close of the trial, a p r i m a r y court M a gi s t r a t e had to su m ma ri se the e vi d e n c e to a s s e s s o r s and then seek their views was s c r a p e d off w i t h no r e s e r v e d elem ent of discretion. The said Rule provides.. "3 (1) w he re in any p r o c e e d i n g s the court, has heard all the ev id en ce or matt ers p e r t a i n i n g to the issue to be d e t e r m i n e d by the court, the m a g i s t r a t e shall p ro ce ed to cons ult wi t h the as ses sor present, with the v i e w of re ac hi ng a de ci s i o n of the court. (2) Tf all Ithe mem be rs of the court agree on one decision, the ma gi st ra te shall proc eed to record the de ci sio n or judgement of the court which shall be signed by all the members. (3) For the a v oi da nc e of doubt a m a g i s t r a t e shall not in lieu of or in addit ion to, the c o n s u l t a t i o n s referred to in sub-r ule (1) of this rule, be e nt itl ed to sum up to the other mem be rs of the c o u r t " . The cop y of judgem ent of the pr i m a r y court on record shows that the M a g i s t r a t e sum ma ri se d the evidence., invited the a s s es so rs who gave the ir in div idu al op in i o n s w h i c h were recorded. He then 5

r e c o r d e d i m m e d i a t e l y thereafter. H a k i m u : and p r o c e e d e d to exp re ss his v ie ws s u p p o r t i n g those given by assessors. This is followed by: Amr i_L Mdai ana shi n dw a kut.hibit.isha dai chini va k i f u r gu No. 06 ya Ka nu ni ?.a ushahidi. Mdaiwa a n a y o h a k i katika dai hili ae nde lee kuishi katika ny um ba h i y o ...". W i t h o u t e ve n p os i n g to answer w h e t h e r this is how a judgement should look like, a qu es t i o n pr om pte d by its cur io us format, T sh oul d o u t - r i g h t l y state that it has viola ted Rule 3 qu ot ed above. Un der the Rule a m a g i s t r a t e o nl y c o n s u l t s the a s se ss or s and then w r i t e s the judge me nt w i t h o u t p u t t i n g on record the individual op i n i o n s un l e s s there is a d i s s e n t i n g member, and there wa s none here. The c o n s e q u e n c e s of v i o l a t i n g Rule 3 is to turn the whole pr oc e e d i n g s , judge men t and or de rs into a nu l l i t y [(PC) Civil Appeal No. 156\97 O m a r y N a s s o r o M b o t f o vs A b da ll ah Raid T.ikupila; (PC) Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1990 Selemani Bakari vs Felista Helmani ; PC Civl Appeal No. 81 \98 Hamisi N g ura ng wa vs 7.ainabu Ko nd o - all of D s m Registry, unreported]. Thus, both lower courts' proceedi ng s, j ud ge me nt s and o r d e r s are d e c l a r e d a nullity. It is further or de r e d that the case should start de novo, on same fees as o r i g n a l l y paid, for, the court is to bl am e for w ha t transpired. That settled, I have asked myself as to w h e t h e r T should or de r to h av e trial de novo held before the p r i m a r y court or D i s t r i c t Court. Under s. 18 and 63 of the Ma gi st ra te s' Court Aci , the d i s p u t e d p ie ce of land falls tinder s u b je ct mat te rs w ho se j u r i s d i c t i o n lie wi t h p r i m a r y courts unless, among others, "the High court gives leave for such p r o c e e d i n g s to be c o m m e n c e d in 6

some o t he r court". It will be noted that hoih p a r t i e s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n c e counsel right from the D i s t r i c t Court. We are not told (and indeed th e r e w o u l d he no j u s t i f i e d ca u s e even to inquire., for., we k n o w that A d v o c a t e s don't ap p ea r in p r i m a r y cou r t s ) w h e t h e r they w ou l d not have m a n a g e d to e n g a g e s e r v i c e s of counsel fr o m the start. Ho we ve r, h a v i n g m a i n t a i n e d counsel in bo t h c o u r t s (Di st ri c t and H i g h Court) it is most likely than not., that g i v e n ch ance, they w o u l d still m a i n t a i n counsels' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . C o n s i d e r i n g this, and also the time lag so far taken, and, further, that the counsel ( a s s u m i n g p a r t i e s r e t a i n the same) mu s t o b v i o u s l y by now ha v e the facts and law at thei r fi n g e r tips, it is mv c o n s i d e r e d vi e w that T shou ld order., as T h e r e b y do, that trial de no v o be c o n d u c t e d b e f o r e the Kino nd on i D i s t r i c t Court. T ha v e given leave to have this mat te r c o m m e n c e d in the D i s t r i c t cou rt not wit ho ut due regard to legality. T h a v e c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d s. fi3 of the M a g i s t r a t e ' s Court., Act, w h e r e it states, " U n l e s s the H i g h C o u r t g i v e s leave for such p r o c e e d i n g s to be c o m m e n c e d in some ot h e r court , and I h a v e c o n c l u d e d that the said w o r d s mean that the court can be m o v e d by a p a r t y to gra nt the r e q u i r e d leave or can act suo mot.o, d e p e n d i n g on the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of a p a r t i c u l a r case. The p r e s e n t c a s e n e c e s s i t a t e s the latter c o u r s e w h i c h T h a v e a d o p t e d Last ly, for the same r e a s o n s that c o m p e l l e d me not to order for p a y m e n t of fresh fees b e f o r e c o m m e n c e m e n t of retrial T make no o r d e r as to costs. Bac h p a r t y to bear its own costs. M l , 'tinsel ©A/v (T. . R . Kal eg ev a) , HJDOR

• 1 -