Christina Pendo vs Sebastian Ngimbwa (Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 1998) [1998] TZHC 2080 (4 September 1998)

I \ MISC. CIVIL I\PPLI:;= 1 .TION NO, .25 OF 1903 CHRLSTIN/, V!IDO , ••. • e •• o ...... - •• o •••• •. '\PPLICJ.i'-'.'l' v:snsus RULING • ,I!· ••• MACK!i.NJA J. The undis:i:iuted faets sh~•., that Sebastian Nc;imbw-a, the resrionclent, institute1 a civil ae;tion acainst the applier.mt, Christa . ?0).r1.o, Civil Case No. 94 ol l992, it the Court of Resident Ma~~istr;:,_tc, :i ,1.:-:: 1 .:., in Dar es salam, The defeml.a.nt'e: ne.r-10 was erroneously written as Christina Pe·do in.steal'.\ ot ehista Pendo• So efforts to effeet aervico 0:1 "!-\er , , directly became quite a co;-:it'roversy, In the en:; the tri::i.l c~:1:;•·I; ,-,as s2.tisfied thti.t it ,,,as neees<Gary to have the defen-1.ant serve;! '.,y way of substituted sel"'lifeo . The service 'was therefore pu 1 )lishod in one of the ,' newspapers. On t1e stren:3th of t}iu.t serve ju:l;-;ne.!}t !?:-. pBrt~ :--JaS entered on· behalf ,,:of the paintiff on 14th J;;,.nuary• l993• The r.tpplicant ewears that she was not awaf jhe suit, rl it was not until 1J+th Dec()!."i1'or, tl-i.;"_t is t,1') ·;c -ftr. the ~e.0.l'ee 1·1as passed aGairist her, th"'.t ,she came to know of the existence of -,e suit, She eame to 'be a 1 ·1.si.rc o:? it when the respondent andtcnurt bailiff, one Leonard Kuhaca, 9 (,rve,. h-):::- ·,iui a _ demolish ode{ ¥1 repeet of -che },uit property•·· The order 1 .-ms elated 29th April,. lJ9'_ The a:('':'..:•---it ·evi14Jnee r.;;101vs -ch:J.t the app.J.ic?Jlt ,ouJ--1_ ,. )t hnve known that ther was a stlit against her )E!eause it was not 1ode:1. in \er naMe•

,-'--.- 11ot ha_ ving_ I 1 •Iill assume. for the moment that she has ·sho,vn z;oo'.'.. c:.,, .. -., .; , .. defended a suit she was not aware of• Se ahe ·ltTne o.wc_-;:-:- o."' it when the respondent ;.nd a -court bc1.itiff visite:-l her at th( sut pl'.'ei:.:;.::s. It saema that soon after she wM aware nf ths £.J.:- dec::-e.q she instituted an applie:ition to have that dere set asj.de. Ier ap;?lia.tion in th"=l.t hehalt was dismissed• She s1-1ears tha.t e awJ;-cation was dismissed on 5th Jul;,J991 the reeo_rd of proceeclin;;s oo.o,-m,i,.:,., er t'v,.t the order dismissinr; he application is dated 23itd JulY-t,. 9De Tl1G rtlJ.T)OB-;.") of this applicc'..tion i for extention of ti:·1e within wl)ieh to file r-tn a;,rylication for revis!a,i ·o:r the order th.'.¼t di/:;,,:issqd l:1er: appJ.icnt ion, •

2 - The applicatio::i fo trou_cht under section 14 (1) of the L,·)1 of T,imitation l\ct, 1971., Mr, Jun:iu, l2P.:r.::1e: 1 . c•:iJ.asel :fol' th:~ applicatt, h,".S a.r:;;u-::d. the applic-t:''):'1 0~1 '.:;'--:) S'c!i1e lines on the affidavit evidence ,sur.r,n1-tin::: this applic::.:.:j).: i·, be.sed• He,. like the api;)lican\ cC'n-':'):·.s th.si.t t1e applicant could not hav .. acted r:1ucl1 e· ·:lier because she ,.,·.:.;; :·-o·~ 2 1 •1:-: .. re of t1e suit; th3.t she ought to have heon ;ive.o en opportuni·:y tc: dofo.·~' the suit and that sl;ie spent time in her $f'fort to h2.vc the ~,2;::::i,:;·t~.ju · :; ,·n ~ set aside. Mr •. Ta1ayo, le2,.rned counsel .:.:'.::ir the res1?on, ::;::/: 1 c;-:,nt~·,r·s that the applicant is {Yilty of lP.c½.es r.n·~ ·::hc:1.-t the e.pplic ·:;i-::;:1 > .. s n-'.! ,·,erit. After hcarin:; le2rnd counsel, a11d havin:; ·;one through the record of proceedingst I· fin'. t;w_t ,,,:1e.t is at issue b not V12 triD.l ccurt ts order by which an .E:.1iarte jurl;nent '.1/c'G r;ntered in fo.vr.--ur of t~1e res·:,,:mdent. What is at st,--:ke is the 0r-:ler t.h,-t :lis;-1isseri V.1e ;;:i:j·,licc1tion for extention of tim2 wit1in which to file appJ.ic;c:tion ;-•Eh 2 pr-ay,2r that ex parte _ .. ,......,__ .•; jurl9;1ent b~ set a.side. That orde1· is,· ·a,'3 I JJ,,vc s:::i:l.s >.,:•3•:l 23r-d July, 1996. What she was required. to do \·tas to a;J?00.l c1.: :c.'.in.:-:,;: th·-':. ::·, '.::-·: i.a terms of rule ( d) of Orler XL of tha Civil Proc,!•· 1 .ure Codeo <::inc2 ,:'io . ::der refusing .... -an Anplicat-ion for ·ex'c<mtion of ti·. 1e fr; a1Y;Jeleablc, it ca::mot 1)e the subject of r8vi2" -:-,·l t)l'oeeedinCTS• Aecordinr: to section 79 of t>e Civil Procedure C'.)'.J 1 revisional proeeer'tinrs ca1.1 be ius+-;-.)te·-l only in respect of dec_isions 7/f#~ in which nn a,pee.l J.ies t:.1eret'.)o. o·' ~ 1':.::!cess::-,.2.-5.ly, therefore, this ap!)lic-?.tion: iG incompetent. In the result the a';)pJ.ice.tion i'-: rlisr:,isse·:' f, {7 ; .' I -c 1-----o..P-/i. ______ c- <t- J. M. Mackanje. ,' JU')C.-'T; Mr. Jundu, !.clvocnte: For .l. 1 _)plicant Mr. Taday-C>, .Lcvoeate: Ibsent: li'oi· Jesponcl.ent