Edward Runda vs Margareth Runda Langoi (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2494 (7 December 1998)

IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT OF.ARUSHA AT ARUsw/ +::;"'., .·· ..... __ ·- - .... EXTENDED .jiPPELIA7'E JURI$DICTION. CIVIL APPEfi:o·-·No~·:.2/98 (c/f H/C Civil .Appeal N~:-.1.5/9if?l:"Om-RM'.--- . . . · ... ;.Court Civil ease No_-· 9/96) ':: ,, EDWARD .. O:. RUNDA e••·',i"·- • • •-'• • ·:·J..PPEtL:00 · yel'.'SUS · .. M.i\RGAR.Erif RUNDli. "i.NGOI' .• .• • • RESPONDENT RULING W. ij.·. B KAPAYf~,' 1 E)(.: '' I' :.. • '. ..> ;. '. , •.• : • wli~; :-hi~ :I:P~~ :•airie ·ui, for "iaring· .Mr·· Dt:fS,bu~~ :1earitd tounsel appearing for the appellant filed an interlocutory application under·: the provisions. of paragraph (b) .. of. $UP-rule (1J. ciif 'Rule 27 :-of Order xxxix of the Civil Proc'edure· c·odtr; 1966.-' Thes· ;rott.isions provide as '. .. .. . .. fo+l6w~: .•.,. ,· . -., ·,_ · · .· .. . (; .. ' ' ... ;, ' '·> (:· .· ' ' . "T,he parties· tq. an appeal ·shan:·not be ·entitled·:to produce · 1 • ·¼:(dd1tional eviq.enee· whether· oral'· or documentary "in court. : ;But if the ooμ.r.t requires •aey .. d.oument t9 be prbdi.;gli or . -any.; w,itness to: be .'exam.ined to 'eiiable it to pr,onounce-•·, ... ' judgement,· qr for-· any' qther :~ubstantial cause, the:. court .... •. . ' ' - • ' . t ,,. ·,. '' may allow su"h eviden.c.e or document· .to. be pr9ducea, ·or '"jj, .. ·. \o/itn,ess t'!, .Qe:.examin,ed."· · · ._ ··· · ,,, . I•·, · .-The addi ti'orial'. evider{c: sought to ·be p;oduced.iel,g .clan minutes of· . • • t~ • • ,.; .: •• • • • .•.• •• • •• •• '.. • !.C ·• , .. a meeting held on 26/10/89. According to Ar. De Souza the meeting upon which these minutes arose deprived the appellant of the suit property ,.,; !:.--wb+ch wa~ .. eJ,.ier .grnted tci him i:n,ter,:tiv.•lby hi~· fat"4er. As such,_ . . . . . . ~ .. . . Hr,. ,De .. ,Souza. contended that the minutes .are essential for ,p.urposes of •. • I ,: •. ' •'. ~ ,<,, •• •. •, • _. ~ • •• • \ • • • • .•.• • l • L. _pronocing judgement on .appeal.· Mr. Mci learned Counsel who·· _appe- . ' . ,, . ) . -~ ,.' . . · . . . . .• . : . . . : :,.. '.: ~t:'sJ9r; the r!;'lSp!J>ndent -suqroi"tted that the. said mutes are not··:rele- . . ·,,, . '1 . . . :: i .. v,~~ :.:for a.rr:r ·ca.us~, oqi: I?Pal.. ... . ; r · · . ·. ': · 1 ,. ,'.• ... >.<' . The,,record' on .app~~1:·(;eveals that ·?- witness· .of the respondent had • • .~ •• • # • • i~. . ' . . . ;op.ght. to produce the a 1 i,d cl meettng. minute.s as· ev¥.nc :d~ing •••/2

2 . 1•· • i •• Th~,court did 1 infact make an order j;o the effect that the said minutes be pr-odticed in court o.n a specified date. 1 Caae the data the court and t.he partoo appea:r- to ·have forgotten all about the minutes. In its . . ... ,:, . .• judgement the trial court made no reference of any kind to the minutes. In ·finding £or· the' r·espondet it founded its decision on evidence other than the ninutes. "Th~·<q'liestion before this court is whether the said clan meeting ., ........... . minutes may be admitted as·additional evidence. In dismissing· the circumstances under which additional evidence under the Rule may be . ·, ... .,. .,.. ... ' admitted Mulla_in Code. of Civil .Procedure (VqJ,.I!.13th Edition at PP• 1605 ~ 6) says: "'.rhe admissibility of additioiAl evidence is made to depend, ·not ·upoh· the relevancy or materiality t9 tjle issu~ before th~ Cqllr~ of the. ·evidence sought to be admit.ted, o:,:- upon ·th.efact.whether or not the applicants:had an 'opportunity of. adducing evidelice at ·some earlier .stag~, but ;ul?tm whether or not the Appella,.te Court-requires the evidence to enable it.to pronounce judgement o:r- for any other substantil cause. The iegitimate province for the application of the Rule is when; on examin:μig the. evidence ,as.:it ·-stand$, some inhe- rent lacuna 6:r-.defect,becomes apPareti not where a disco- very is :ma.de, outside·· th~ c.ourt, of ·fresh. evidence and the applicJ.tion is mad~ to import·i t... The mile is -not intended to. allow_ 'a:· :hi:igant wh_o: lia.s. been u_nsu,c'cessful in the lower c.ourt ·to· patch up the wep...k. points:n his ·c.ase and to fill . tip omissions in the Cor.t of Appeal. 11 In the petition of appeal ,Mr •. De Souza has inade some reference to . .· ,••· " . the said-clan inute.s in some of the grods of appeal~. Iii arguing this applicat:ion>Mr. De .SoUZ/:l. said that the· c:lam meeting that gave rise " :'\ ,,, ' ' to the minutes· deprived the appeH.ant of the suitland that .was granted to him inter:vJxol a.rlir- on.; his, fath;. It was his cortention in ·' '. . . ' effect that the clan meet:i..ng hd-no,authority to qverrule 'the grant . . ' . '•. . ., ,, . made by the appellant• s father. · Mr .• Oe. Souza says .tht this court f •• • • • • . would, _fo:r this reason, _requ,ire .the· minutes inorder to make an informed ,. , decision on appeal, one :way or .the other. ~-- ... /3

... : .... 3 . + Mr~ Mchami does.'no~ think so and with respect, I agree with him •. · Hai;μig scoured the record and c~.the reasons the trial court . . - .... gave for its decision together with the iritetio.tt -g1:v-en .oLthe . . .- .... -:. ___ _ Rllle in question I am not pursuaded 1 without prejudic·e to the grounds of appeal· touching- on the minutes in issue, that the said mi.M.t.es. 'Will,. of necessity, be necessary in the determination of the appeal · ·Ill..£:tDs- the applioation should be and is hereby disallowed with costs •. )~~~~ . _,,.,,,..... (W. N. B. Kapaya) PRM (EXTENDED JURISDICTION) 7/12/1998 Delive,ed in court this 16th day of De.cetnber, ·1998 in the presence of Mr. De Souza for the applicant and Mr. Mchami for the respondent. .A.T .l.RUSHA 7th December, 1998. WNBK/el. \J ,:,~---S-- (w. N. B. Kapaya) PRM (EXTENDED JURISDICTION) 7/12/1998