Severin Mtalo vs Alsennius J. Mpewmbwa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2133 (30 July 1998)

IN THF. HIGH COH'R1' OF 'T'l\l-17..l\NT A AT DAR F.R_RAAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7R nv 1QQ7 :sEVERIN. MTAT..O. . • • . . . . . . .. . . . . APPELLANT VBRSIJS ALSENNIUS ,J. MPF.MBWA ~ ANOTHP.R . 'RFSPONDF.NT JUDGRMF.NT KALEGEYA, J. The Appellant, Sever in Mta lo, ;=inr'I Rr.>spnndpnf·, Al::;enn i 118 .Tr)hn Mpembwa, were defendant and plaintiff rPspr.>r,tiv,=dy hefore thP lower court. Although the r_ecoro hr:>fnrq thir-: ,~n11rt al::;0 in,'lir::,3!:0s Hariz Auction Mart and Court BrokP.,- ;H: '.'n,1 l?f.3r.::ponrlent T f i nrl this to be an anomally hecause t· hp ;i i ,1 r''"', t P, nker w;:i::; rl'"VP. r ;1 party to the proceedings save his invnlvr.>rnr.>nt in exer-11t..i0n process which, in th circumstance~, can not ntail ,making him ,)t:•ji ·: party to the appeal. When dealing with_ 1·h i ~ rn.:=if· f-er therefnr-e I will be making refernce to one RP.por1tl,:.11t, MpeTTlhwa. The Appellant was repre,ented by Mr. NyF1ng.:=1r i k.:=1 .. Arlvocat.e, wh.i le Mr. . ·-,,~~:'""·. Msemwa,. Advocate represented the RP.spnrirl PT), .. ., ., Just·- to give the story 'iea.ding :, ... :·· i./ a'!ffglimpse of the wholA ·i"J1'.. tE(the present appeill. mttAr the following iR ... ,. _ _ :; · W -: - :iit _ ·-;i0n_:'16th.(Januat,y} 1996, Mpembwa (Re::;pondent) filed a suit · 1· ·•.-••·: · ;.-·li against' Mtal.9 · (Appel).ant) at Kisutu Res i.nent. Magistrate's Court .': ' •.' ,j"' ,.,. i: ,.t foi:1:trespasslagainstt;his plot allegina t.h;:if:. the latter had ,, ,'/ ,,•,11.. - ,1\1.'' construced 'thereo~):~ business 'hut. 1 mer1R1.1ri.ng 70m by 4m; was carrying'on ijewspap~t vending; selling pepRi cola products and /• " , : • ••'r1:"" conducting motor vehicle repairs. The plnint went on to state

• . . - ( . .::l'..j? . . that because - of this,. he has suf f eren 1 os!'-': nf hmnness wh1 ch he ·,t-.-:,-·, could have ot,herwis~;;'establ ished, ;rn(l n l Rn l eo to f rustre t. ion of a contract aiready 1 entered intd bAtween hi,n Rno coca ~ola Company. He assessed the ·damages ;1t_ shR. '-,990,.000/= excltrniv'-' nf interests and costs.

,. :,·.·:,,•1•, :'..::,·

... ;- . \ :·· -;•.ct~:,2'96 summons to file <lefenr.e was issm,cl and on 1\2\9S a process server returned the summons 11npn;Prl with an aff iciavit stati.ng·tha.t\the Defendant hacl refm=:prl sPrvir.P. nn ?.o\2\9n t.ht:? matter: was mentioned and her.1ring wr1R fi•-•n,1 r-:,n q\4\C}n on whir.Ji . ' date, Mr. Ngalo, advocate, for plr.11ntiff prrtyPn for j11dgment nn the basis of defendant's refm=;r1l nf ::;prv i ,·<->. ThPn t-hP r.011rt ordered, "In view of the fact that. thP flpf,:,11rl;int hr1s ref1rnen service and process server hr1s r1ffirmP in her affidavit, I enter judgement· in f;:n,rnir nf thP plaintiff as pr;:1yP<'J". Then there followed execution pr0,•p0(1 i nuR wh i.ch wP.re exhibited in the Court. Rrok.f!r'R r1t·t;:ir•l,,,,on1 nf f-l1f! jwlgement.- debtor's 2 houses and rt. Saloon rnot·n,· v,,'1i1·lp tn sr1tiRfy r1 decretal sum-standl9 at Shs. 17,1?.'i,7nO_/= thPn. Naturally thP.qP steps jolted jugement-rlehtor to r1lprf-nP!~~ nnr1 nn 11\5\QF; hP. r.111 1 to the lower Court. with 2 (two) chamhPr s11rrnnrms Ruppnrte<l hy .:: J: ·. affidavits complailng that he was not r1wr1rP of the existence of . 'tf;•. • the suit until the-{day he was serv13,n wi t.h r1t.t·r1r.hment. wrtrrcrnts; ·. . ;:,-; :d that the houses attched are residP.ntir11, fnr himself an<l hi:=: :- ·: family, ; heng_e, qt,.:.1;,tachable in term:=: nf s. 48 CPC; that the 111\ v {. ' ·:··\ ' . ·. ';:·~~:-; is ·the::·only.:-'.sour·cetof his family' R i nromP. He prayed for • ' •. • •. ·.' i~_j~ extension ofktime ithin which to file r1n r1pplication for setting -:: . -:: aside the_ ex·parte jdgement; set.ting r1:=:idP of the exparte •'J ·,; ... '•··, judgement an¢! extension of time within whir.h to file defence. This was in .. respect:'Yof the 1st chrtmhPr 111r1111ons. In the 7.n<l •., chamber summons heprayed for both expr1rtp r1r1n interpartes (jn R confusingly mannerJn respect of same prr1yers - that execution --- .:1- 0 f the decree passed on 9\4\96 be str1yP, thr1t wr1rrrtnt of attachment of 9\5\96 be lifted and thr1~ t l1P propP.rty already attached be restituted. The accompr1nying r1ffidr1vit has a1n,oR1 the same substance as that contained in 1·hn nthpy· ;=iffidavit ex.c~pt. here he adds. that he will suffer irrPprtrRh]P loss if the relevnnt properties are sold. ' ., . .., , l~,~~•1 I 1-, : ·..,·,;' l •:· _. .. ,• '· ,. ..ki'i -L ~ ,,,i::;,• 2

. . On 23\5\96 Mr_-. Nyangr.1rika, Arlvn,•,,tn_. ''!'!1"';1n•rl fnt· thP Applicant ( Mtalo) w,hile Mr. Nga lo, Anvnr•r1 t· p, appeared for • • . ,. , I , ' • ~ • . Repndent: ,1t was-greed that the ;:ippl irrltinn for stay of I • . 'i executio_n, rising ;the attachment. nnl,=,r r1nrl l"P ti tut. ion of . . ·. ·_,... . attached· property was of gnat urgpnry :n1<l F:hn111 <'I he hear·<'! f i rF: 1·. Mr. Ngalo asked for'time to file ;:i <:011nf·pr-r1ffiilr1vit, whiC'h prayer was granted and the rtmP. filp,-1 nn ?8_'1\Qfi. Wh;:it. r1pp<=>r1rc: nn record next are the proceedingR c1rit·<=>rl .1\7\qr; in which' arg,rn1Pnts in re: .pt o.f 1st application ( ;::il t.hn11CJh r1t c:nme point. t.r.r1 i 1 i ng into the 2nd· application) wen mr1nf" r1n,l n, ling was nservi=>rl tn 16\7\96. The Ruling was not delivfn-p,l till A\11(}6. Thi hnwpvnr was not a ruling in respect of t. hP. r1pp l i ,i'! 1 i "" hPr1rn. The Principle Resident Magistrate ohSflt'VPrl 111;,t t hPy Rho11lc'I h;:ivp heard the other application f i n=t t . f,P t· hi--:: nwn wnrdR pr1 int th"' picture,. "Iti?ls my opinion that we he;:ir<'I inmr1t11r-f>ly the applic;:iti.ofl seeking stay of execution of derrPR nr rr1iing of wr1rrRnt of attachment~. I therefore order thRt we proceed first with chambersummons seeking ext.P.nRinn of time to file applications ·:.to set aside exp;:irt.e j11 1 'igement and leave to file written statement of defpnre". . f:/- Meanwhile the Respondent had filed R comif er affi<iavit to the /.fld ., ..... application by 12\7~\96. In line wit.h the Mr1gist.rate 1 :=; ru)jng hearing o(te oth~~{:application was fixPil on 1\3\97. On this ' . . • .•· •l?J dae ?;·ttie. ,l.tned a~~pcates hO!lgled over whet.her they shou 1 d pro!ed:tp).t..9u C?:-f preliminary point of law (which has not come:,to mt:n,?,tice f the alleged r.P.ply t·o t·.he couner-affidavit is not on record) but the magistrate r11t thf>rn short by saying that the court was acting suo motto an r!lling upon the court ;;:; process· server to a.certain whether j nnPP,rl Applicant refused the summons. The proces server was duly summoned, sworn and she . -t:: explained ho the Applicant simply 1 ookP, -tt summons and t ·:!: accompanying: plainfr,and simply nt.urnP.n t hPm t.o her saying that i¥' ,. ha had'to eo.-itact hie ll!wyttr f:t..r.111t. l'ln<1 ,•nnlc'I thfltr.ttafter r.oll8ct: . ·"·"' ... , them from the court:· She was cross x;:iminPn hy Mr. NyRngr1rika. .. , },.·- :,; ;ii:;:x)· '' .· ... ··:•:.•:·::.• ,• ............ •, ,· :.: }:.: ~{~~ .· ,,· •. i, 3

:. ;-This;was followed on 6\6\97, hy .A Rnling in thP f ol.1 owing •From the above, I am of thP. opini.nn. th;1t· the process server'•had done her job properly ;1nrl t·hp rlRff:mcl;rnt by refusing service barf r1h11sPrl ii Hn r;1nnnt. he hf'HU-o that he was not served. Fr.om thP l11nk of P.ventR I r1m of the ·opinion thr1t the orclP,. fo1· j11,lrJP111Pnt· by def ;rnl.t was proper. The judgement shn111 r'l h,:, i:>n f orcec:L The execution of decree shouln g0 nhPA<l. l\ppl ici=ttions for setting aside def;rnlt jungment·. ;.:Jtirl t hr1t one seeking extension of time to file nP.fRncP r1r·p rli$mi.ssed wi.1.h costs". It is against-that ruling th;it t.hP AppPll:rnt- hr1s contR t.o thi court, challenging, in his mRmon=rn,111111 of l\ppPrJl thFJt. thP I, i;1l court erred in withholding a r,1Jing whirh h;1~ hRRn reRerved on ,,,'··· the application for. stay of execut. inn And rPR t.orrJt. ion of property; in hearing only the prorPRR RPtvPr Rn~ proceeding to give a ruling withot affording t.he AppPll;rnt chr1nce t.o he henrr1 on the application to set aside ;:,n Pxpr1r1 P j11dgmf'rnt;• in holding that Appa'l'lant was duly served hut. nf11RPcl RP.rvi r.e .::1nr1 t.hr1t. the quality and quantity;. of the evidencP. 1·Prn1PrPd i.n scale did not warrant the conclusion arrived at. In his submissions the Appellant. e~:po11ndP.d furt.hP.r on the . ·£:': grounds of appeal a$fSummarised above hy sr1ying that the trial . "t~:·'' court should have ordered for consolidr1t inn of the 2 chamber .;-• ~ ... applications 'instea4-'of failing to gi vP. r1 ruJ i ng on a fully argued application; fthat the quei=;t. ion whP t her t·.he houses were ur1 ·. t:- a t tachable · in:·· terms 'iof s. 48 ( 1 )( c) CPr. mmd. hr1ve been argued; •. . . :. . . ·t~.:r-: . . that the poit of lw. raised in the reply tn r.011nter-affioavit was so.strong as to''.1eave no fo11nclr1t·.inn on whir:h the co11nter affidavit could standi that there arP tri;1hle i.Rs11es which merit : ·•;• .-:!'14-i!'f., the matter to:go _onltull trial aR thP pl;1intiff's lor.us st.FtncH is at issue; that the summons do not indirtP tJ,g time, place ;:ind who identified Defendant to the prorRRR Rn1·vpt· r.i.ting T. M. Ranga .. :11 "I . Sadrud_in Ali:)hai ·'&;1R,J.hers (1997) [,R'l' S1 ( ! } ;=ind finally that failur~ to n?.ify al.futy of the expr1rt-P j11clg('lmPnt iR enough ground of having it1•et aside. ' . ?.'.~f· 4 ',,,, •;,•If .•

• ' f ; ½ .• In.reply• the Respondent simply m;:lrln gPnPrRl observations - that as .the_ ruling on the 1st applirntinn NrJR nnt. delivered .it. ii=; not subject of this appeal and thP J\ppPl 1.-·:nll hn11ld hr1ve rPR<wt r:>11 to an application for rev is.ion rJS thP.1 e ,n111 rl hP no r,opy nf decree appealed from for there wr1R nn Rnl ing; thr1t thP. prnrPi=:i=: server deposed in his prei:;ence ;:iml wr1F'. r1 t 1 i hPr·t· y to cross examine her and that thf' tri;:il r:rnnt· wr1,- _i11<=:! i fiPrl, in s11mrwn,·i, .. .! her and believing her t.herArtft.pr· nF'- i I 1-1:1 h,.,1 t Pr pl r1cP.d t" assess her credibility (cited ,T. M. Kr11::rnl<r1 v GPorge H11mh;1, Civil App. No. 26 of 1996, {CA) Mwr1n;;rn RP<Ji,, y l1111tPpnr·t·,,,q: U1:1! ''" misled the court by citing a non-Px i ~ I P n I ('.'lRP ;H:; therP. r.tJ·p nn 1997 Reports and distinguished the f'.n.F'-m,-:iF'- f'.nns t. n1r,t. ion Co. T., tJl vs Arrow Garments Ltd case hy saying 1· hr1 I it· nrnn•rned an ext.emd nn of time -within which· to appeal r1n<'1 th;1t· h.=1v i ng not. ;:trgue<'t t·hp sixth ground of appeal he should be t;=ikPn to hr1ve ahr1n<'toned it. : r .· In I'ply, the l?-pellant insistF>rl t·h:t thP. trial court.' s refusal-to deliver ie ruling was not rlnnP in good faith ;:inrl left : . ·! · ! -.1 ••• '!' -·Jt't!f_•• some ··•issues undecid(); that the Appell,rnt h;:irl ;:in opt.ion of P.ithPr . . ·('.i''.·:. appealing or applying' for revision ;:inrl thr1t R. 75 CP~ proviPR that one of the grou_nds that crin hP. Ret- n111 in :'l memorr1n,1,11,, nf Appeal can relate tqan error, defect. or irrAgularity in any • 1.,, order affecting a d~dision and fin;:iJly tl1;"lt- there was no proof nf -.;; having bee_n _ipforme4{of the expr.1rt.e j11<hJP111Prd .

• -·• -;, '. J >rt · •· -- , Jil I will::d:iscu~~,~~_he grounds of r1pper11 rJnrl ensuing arguments ' ...... ~ and counter-arguments' generally togP.ther. . . t . ·.,r' .,. ,. Having carefully considered the .i RR11e he fore me T have . . i}t•:li reached: a conclusi01i'l,that this appeal mu~ t R11Cc:P.ed. The facts l . (• -~ . have painstakingly dtailed at the hegi 1m i ng of this j11<1gemPt1I show that .the: trial:ourt was the one whid1 complicated this . . ~ ,.;.,.f'• -.:.;-, matter by mishandlipg, After the AppP.Jlr1nt. had filed the two -: :. . '. ') . chamber summons, for·stay of execution, lifting of the attachment warrant and restoration of property on nnR hr1n~, ~nd for 5

extension o~~fime n which to fi.lA r1n_ r1pplirRtion for setting asid the exparte j}l_dgemAnt; sAt.t. i ng r1~ i rlP nf the expr1rt P judgeent itself an extension nf timP witl1in which to filP ;:i defence on the other, thP. tri r1l r.n11rt w;ic: 11pprn:;po either t.o consolidate thA said appl..icnt.i.onr.:;, h.P.;i,· t hPm r1n,1 g.ivA A nil ing, or if, it felt otherwise, as it. p11rpn1·t i:>rl In rln, it r.:;hottln h;:ivp heard one application r1t. n t.imP. ;::inn g.,vr-- i,,,,,-,ir·;it·p nP1,i!::dnn~ thereon. Instead, it rumbled into r1 prnr·Prl11t·P, legally urihearc1 f•f

• hearing one application anrl rARP.1·vin0 nrl inrJ hut. bAfore delivering the decision, lenv ing thP r1pr, 1 i r·n t inn h.:rng i ng in t Jtp air only to tackle another Rpplir.r1tinn,. whid1 in effer.t . .is al.Rn not heard, for it was not argued ;:it ;::ill RAVP the evidence of thP process ~erver! The 1 .just.ification nf t-hP "pppllr1nt.'s r.omplnint nn this can hardly escape any truth RP.Pk i rHJ frwm~ . .. As rightly pointed out hy t.he AppPllr1,,t lhP Respondent's argument ,,\pat. the m~~~ter cr1n' t. he r1ppPR 1 P<l r1g,- 1 i r,Rt comP.R t.o 11i=; ;:is R surprise .. for suchfglaring clefP.r-t.R or i:>,·,nn=: 11nrlP.r R. 75 r.pr. rr1n ' -~ .;:1; find their way to an!fappellate r.O11rt on ;:ippPRl. 'T'he t·rinl court . ! ;, --··. did not delivr thetielevant Ruling in thP fir·gt r1pplication allegedly because tiother applir.Rtinn w;:iR the propPr one whih 1..,1) should have been heaid first. It tonk t.hP tri;:il rourt. r1bout five . ··~~~·· months to reach this··/exceptional -"lnrl vPry 11111.1st1-"ll finding. The ,l··•!S i· ,. court then!decided .tti; hear the other r1nnlirr1tion. Surprisingly . . : \ ;,.•:,· . . H-: - - again it did;'.not heatJthe part.iei::;! 'T'lrnrP iR not.hing unmrn.:=\l for r1 ·. ,, . court. to call\upon ,the witness, suo mot-o for the mar.:; of just.ice. I ~ ' .ft ' I ' ; "/: In fact orderl5, ::Ruie119 CPC empower:=; rl cn1n-t· to ex;:imine Ruch . ....... . •'f'.r..'.: serving officer if i~~deemed proper. Tn tl1iR rr1Re however only summoning and!hearingthe procesi::; RArver r;:in't bP. said to be th , ,Ii'·;.":) hearing of the applig_?tion. The proceRs RPrvAr w;:is neither the Applicant nor\the.Reipondent. She WRR j11Rt R wjtness. Her P-vidence, in the circumstances, could UtPtPfnrP. only r.ome in after the parties hav,e argued the i. r r.r1RPR. 'T'hPy n id not.. The . (·[ advocte's argumentsfon whether they Rhn11l~ firRt arguA on~ pn~liminary point of:, .law (which wr1i=; PvP.n ln11RhP.n r1side by the 6 ., . '.,_,1·, )t· /· =',;

court) can't'be taken to be arg11mP.nti:; nn l·h"" •nrtin ;:\pplication. Tn this jumbled procedure it i.s not. :=;11rpriinci t-hrtt the Principle Resident . Magistrate hancied down r1. ru 1 i ng which inc luciP.d ciP.c iR i.nn on the 1st· application which he hertnl h11t 1·pf1Ji=:Prl t.o rle1 i ve, .. ;:i ruling and also on the suhseq11ent. ;:ipp 1 i r•;1 t inn wh i ,h hP ,. 1 :i i mr:>rl should preceed the former! Further to the above di sc11:=;i:;ecl _. Pv Pl I i f i t hrt<l f n11rnl grn1111,l c; of refusing to extend time within whir-h ln ,ri!)ly for :=;et.ting aside the exparte judgement the tri;:il cr,11,1· :=;hn11l,l hnVP fin::f: heard arguments by both prlr.ties cnnrPrning th"' m, r.1tt.r1chr1hilit:y of the two houses in terms of s. 4R nf lhP r.Pr.. 'Ry Rimply dismissing the applicat.i.ons· as it cli,1. :-rn rightly poin1P<l out hy the Appellant, it left the mr1t.ter llll(lr· i ,1,.,d ;:inrl hanging! The, total sum of the ahove conf11R inn rln<l mix 11.P, rl.1 onP r.annot; allow the\Ruling, if it deserves to hP rrtllrl onP, to stan. Even the question regarding t.hP prnrP.RR RPrver, whose • ... :ii: •. ,.:'_ evidence seems to have been the bai:d R of thP r1.i sput.ed ruling, is not without taints .:t;ihe Af f idavi. t. i::;worn hy f·he process server shows that: the summ.ons was issued on 1 ? \ q" f nr appearance on : . : . ·_;r, .·.: r:,: .. ::·· 26\2\96/and;was se.r;yed just a day ;iftpt· ih:~ lRRtJnce (2\2\96). However,' it .is silen, in violatjon of 1'}1p prnvisions of O.V, ·, _,.,:· _:";:t·· Rule 18 CPC, iamong·thers, about the ppr·snn who icientified . ;- ·:•,!"f defendant to:: the. prqqess server whPn t h,.q'"' i ~~ r1 prirt. i.r.ulr.1r. spr1<,e . . ·--~~~ inter:ided to.be specj.ically filled in with 1ho:=;P part.icuJrir.s. Now, · in her depositi.9n before the r.n11rl: hp ;:i i ,1, : ... r ,· ·. . _§JJt "I.had accomph'fen the p1aint.iff t-o Kipawr1 where the defendant1ftlives. I waR shown th"" <h•fennant who was at)the sh9p. lt was hiR Rhop thP pl;iintiff showed!me ther,?ef endant . . .. . . •-. :· .... ·-,:~~·~ ................. . • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 • ~ • :·The 3rd perso.1,1., was a taxi o.ri.vP.r" . .. ;,. .. .,.\ ~~ .. 7 ·:. ·.• ..

·., . . I At ·.the same time however, the Rei=;ponrlP.nt ~ MpP111liwr1) in hi i=; hot.h count_er-aff_idavits in support of thP. f wo ch;:11nhpr r1pplicat ions hP. had filed, para. 5, he Rt.at.en in imil;:11· wnnl·ing, ''The summons was serve<'I hy onP. Fr1t111nr1_. r1 Kii=mt11 RMs cm1r1· process_Rerver. Since Fat.11rnr1 rli<l 11nt know the Applir.;1nf·'r.:. home or whereab011tR, she ~~~ __ em·nt I r>,l liy •P 0 __ r.i_,1 __ pJ1.--Mr1t i ,Ht KachAle, a neighhrur. The ornP,f JH-,·v----J•avi na hA"! shown· the business premises of thP _ _;1nnl i r.r1nt, met the appl.i.cant. at the oremises and __ mwP. ___ t.hP. Rt1mmons to the applicant. The appl j C8nt pP.rtHPrl I hP ,·n11 t PntR ;:ind refused to sign the summon!=:" ( Prnph."'l i ~ mi nP.). Are these peopl.e (Fatumr1 and Mpemhwr1) tr1lking tl1e same langu;:ign? Did Mpembwa point out defendant. t.o F.=lt11111r1 or hp pointed out. his premises? Does. the language· quot en r1hnvi:> ~ i gn _; f y Mpemhwa ar:; ;=rn eye witness to the transaction? OoP.s Fr1t-i11n.=l 1 s P.vioenr.P. s11ggpr:;t ;::i mere pointing out of the premi.sP.s t-n hi:>r rn 1-hP oefenclnnt in person? Is the neighbour, Matias J<;:ir,h.=l 1 P... nferncl t,o hy MpernlM.:;1 the same ,•person referred to hy Fat.11rnr1, rlR r1 th i rn pP.rson, ;:i t r1:-: i driver? Can all these unanswered q11ei=;t inns 1 ArlVP 11nsr.rat.c:herl Fatuma's testimony on which the Prinr,ipr1l RPsinent MagistrntR based his whole finding and oP.c ii=; inn? Agri i II t· hi R goes fur th~ r t.n show that only had .he applicatjon hPPn f11lly hP.;:ird coulo a so1,rnl decision be arrived',at as some of thP inl-l·ic!uing quest.ions coulfl have been :ansered. \ilndeed, "Uncert.:=t int y nf sPr.v .i. ce of summons is sufficint reasons for ollow.ing ;rn r1ppl i,·r1t- inn t.o set. aside an exparte judgement and der.ree" ai=: oer,i ,lf,,1 in 1'. M. Ranga Sr1<'lr.11d i.n . - ·\ Ali.Bhai·& Others (1977) LRT 51 (ano nnt 1qq7 ;:is wrongly cited hy Appellant and' attacked by Respondent~). While still on;t!,his quest.ion of the evi rlPnr.e of the process server, it was argu~~ by the Appellant thr11 thp trial. court was . ·:,. the best placed to decide on the q1rnRf- inn nf ,r·erl i hi 1 i t.y of Fatuma and .that the,;;court. on apper1l i::;hnnl<l not- interfere with thP assessment, citing Kas11ka case in :=rnppn, 1 t hP r·pnf. T noeerl, general 1 y that is the legal posit.ion h11 t· i t· i ~ not always t. he case and the Court of Apeal di<l not sr1 Fin int.he rited r.RRe. 8

Eacti ,,case has to be deter.mi rncl on i t.R. own s:Pt of f ;:wt.R. WhP.n thP. issue_. reyolves on necesRriry inf P.rP1-icPR wli i r·h l·1rlVP. to bP. r:;:ipt.un(l from the facts and relritP.rl through r1nr1lyRic: nf thP. r1rg1JmPnt 8 presented there is nothjng to net.Pr ;:i ('011l··1 nn r1ppe;:1l from putting on the same shoes ;:ii=; thosP. of thP t,·i.-=,l court. ;rn(l rn;:ikp its own analysis which in ;:i rlAsPrving r;:is:p 1n;:1y lPrirl tn thP ovPr. turning of the decision of thP. tri;:il ro11rt. Tn the prPsent r.;:isP r have demonstrated that factur1lly tlw t ri ;:il ,·ni,rt oicl not mn.kP Ft proper evaluation and analysis of F;:it11mr1' s Pv i rlPnr.e for it 1 ft_ a lot of questions unanswered let. r11 nnP f ;i i 11n r-> f-<1 p;:iy rtt tPn U 011 as to whether legal requ i r.ements wPn• ,., 1111111 i P,1 w i t-h. I should also touch one mnrP. i mprH Lrn t f Pr! t· 11n=• in this matter which has two .. segments: thP pffp,·•t nf fr1il11rP. t.o nnt.ify the Appellant' of the' exp;:irte juclgP.mP.nt nn nnP ~ i r'lP., Hnr'l on t.he other., whether the expr1r.te judgemP.nt pr1RR~~ nn Q\4~fi wr1R lP.gFtlly entered. 11:T For the former'the AppellantR' r1rg11mP.rit· tlrnt in<lPed a p.:=Jrl-y gainst whom an exparte judgement. is PntPrP<l Rhn11ld hP. nntifiP. of the passing of the Rame cannot hP f r111 l I P<l. 'T'h;:i t j R thP l ;:iw ;rn,1 ; .. , .. it was clearly put tn the case r.itPd, roRmrlR ronstr,1ction Co. Ltd I, ·f vs Arrow'Garments Ld, Civil Applir.r1tion Nn. R of 1992, (<"'.A) nsm, ·-r. -h, Re~+try::·.rlf.~~Ppf,tgJ It sufficeR to q11ntP. t.hP. relevant part, 1 :••:;f 1 Dr: 'Lamai);ha:s·fsubmitted bPfore mP th.:=Jt the High ,, :,;;_::. CotJrf 9ad ··no·:,.bligation to not. i fy t hP. r1ppl i.cant ·. r,::;: of'.';the·t;.date wJ:in judgement. was going t.o he . ·.-::- deli ver,ed. · Wi:t;p respect, t.hr1t. vi PW r.r1nnot. he r.ornr.t .. · ·.'.:' A party,;,who fils t.o enter ;:in r1ppPanrnr.P. (lhrnhl AR .:,_ himself;·from prticipating when t.hP pror.PP.dingi=; arP. •' conseqtiently E3)cparte, hut th;:1 t· i R t- hP f 11r t hest extent he· suffers. Afthough the matter iR thPrP.fnre considered without. any input hy him hP iR entitled to know the final•i•outcome. He hr1s t·n hP. tol(l when the judgement is'delivered so thr1t hP mr1y, if he wishes, at tend ·'to take;_ it ;:is ce:rt.;:i in r.onRr>n11Pnr·PR m.::Jy f o 1.low". . . tt,' - ' f' In the case at hand;.:;then~ was no wr1y AppP 11 ;:int r.ou ld hr1vP hPPn informed nR to whAn · thA P.Xprlrte j11,lgP.m11 I wr1R t-n he prlRP<l q ·:·,

: :'!:: '. ·, . it~ .~ .. '.··· °;' I, • because it as passed i.mmP.oir1tely thP :i!'!'l ir•;:il ion w;i:=; mr1dP.. But even· _then,\ assuming', the procPrl11rP. f n l 1 pwr:>rl w,, : proper· he s hon 1 <l have been informed therRr1ft.er. T f it· i 1.: 1 , 11° t h;1f he cr1mP t n Jo,,,,,, the existence of the ·exparte j11ngP.mmil nn 1 n\ !'l\ qt; he r.annot he blamed for he acted.with a speed whirh rAnnnt er1rn him condemnation by filing thP. r1ppl jr.;it inn nn 11_'i\Qf;. Ag;dn fnl l hearing of the application c:ouln hAvP rlw<=>ll nn this ;in,1 une;:irthPrl ;,. ' what the truth was. Now turn;ing to.' the ✓ .nd Regment, T r1111 nf the view. t.h;:it even t.he exparte jungement it.Flelf WnFI P.nl·e1·p,l r·ntil 1·;:ir·y t.n the l;1w. The type:: of ummons issuen ;1gr1 i nt t hp <lPfen<lr1nt· wr1~ H1P. <111P generally known as "a summonR t.o file r1 rlefPnrP.". Onler V,. R11le 1, (b) of the Civil Procenure Cone, ;:i .'1111PrH1Pcl hy GN 47.2 of 199", provides, (a) •...... {b) if the suit. is irn:;tit.11tPrl :in ,1 Cn11rt ot·her than ,;:''!. the High Court and t.hP r.n,,r· I Rn determines, to file, in i'lCcordanr.e wit.h s11h-r11 le ( 2) of ru 1 e l nf Order VTTT, a written Rt.RtAment of <lefenr.e t.n thP claim (herein-after referrr-><1 ln ;:is a 8ummonR to ., file ~/.defence:- provided" · { notJfoppli.cable hPre) :· r I should pose here and point. out t.hr1t thP Rmfrn<lmPnt. efft=CH:'.t.P.d by ,,.1:,- GN 422 of,1994 did not r1ffect O.V, R11lp 1, s11h-Rule (h). T . ·, < '.(_·lJ ... ' .. :··· f,,• concede ~ow.r h~~{there was ROlflf! r.nn f 11 inn in the drafting possiblyfo:i.nadvertantly. Under GN 42?. of 1QQ4, among others, it ii:; . d d .;,,, ·i .. •• •.:, ". . . .. ·rt~~-i prOVl e ... · ... ,·,·;",·, . ' ' •'•tt I "I•;:::~ V - 1:1f . . :>.·.•,·.·.•·. ·, ',•.;:,•;_,;,: . . .~~::·.r ; (t) by delefing suh-ru]e 1. of R11lP 1 r1nd substit11ting for <it.· thef(f oll owing: - :., .. ' ,:1- ..

1. When a suit:ihas been duly intH11t·Prl ·"' Rnmmons mr1y be issued to the defend;rnt. at the t· i mn whPn the Rui t is assigned to a specifjc judge or 111;:igji:;trate purs11,3nt tn ·.the provisions of rule 3 nf nrPr TV. ' :"..:~, ::t.· 10

., ... . "'· ·'/ ,_.;, ·:'.{{: /:dij· fl1/ (ii) (not applicnhle) but clearly the referPn<P hrrn 1 rl hr1ve heen inf· pndP.tl •: to apply: to Rule '1. i=rnh-n, 1 P. ~ .-"' ·' ;rn f-. here .is no sub- . r-u le :1. in t. h ;:i t or a er . s 11 h -- 1 11 1 r> r h l w r1 s le f t i. n t: a t an<l correspon<1s with O.VTTT n,,in.1 i=rnh-rulP.? (r1l:11 a!Tiended ): ... ::"':··:-= O. VIJT was also a.menden here nnn thp1·p hy r::N 4?? of JQ94 b11t f(,r purposes of our argument. the s i L11r1 t- ion 1 l"m.=i inf.: t hP sr1rnP. rlS t hP. ...... Order III, Rule 1,'provideR, ·• . . •, /• ~ :. . "1 ( 1) where a ··'.summons t.o r1ppP.;n- hr1q l•PPn i.ss11Prl, thP. defendant may, ;:rnd i. f so nq11 i rP.<1 hy t hP. c01nt., shr11 l, within seven days before the f i n:::f- h,.,.'ff i ng present. ;1 written statement. of defencP.". (2) where a Summons to fi lP. r1 ,,,fpnr'.P lrns heen issued and the defenn;:int wishRs In efP.nd the s11it he shall, within twenty one nr1ys of the d;:i,te of service of summons upon him present. t.o thP. r'.ntll't r1 written statement of oefence". :i·!,,: Rule 14 of the same :-.order goes furthP.r, • ·,•!•. "(1) Where any .. part.y h;=is been nq11irP.<l to present a written·stat.P.ment. un<ler R11h-n1lP 1 of rule 1 or a rep 1 y\ u n a P. r r u l P. 1 1 o f t· h i ,:: n rrl P r r1 n n f r1 i 1 s to pre sen ft the sr1mP. within t hP t i lllP f i XP.rl hy thP. court, the\court. shal 1 pronn11rn•p jn,lgP.ment against him or. make Sllh orner in l'P l ;-1 l i nl] t.o t.he Rll it. '. or-·: countr-clrdm, aR t.hP r.r1si:> 111;,y hP, r1s j t. thinks ·· fit. , .-.:r . ·. (:~ . . ,';-; .·,,1._;·•·. ' • "f:t· . .- (2)°;.'Jn·:iany-<,(!aij,e in which r1 nP.fPnnr1nt who is req11irerl f j<i<&iunder-:sub;frule (2) of Rt11A 1 t-o present his writ.ten

• . ., '' ' t· .,. t - f d f f . 1 ..'l • t h . t h ' 1 :/: t s a emen,A-:-0. .e ence r11 s t.n 11n r=;o w1 .. 1.n . e per 1 or '. '' t ~ ' • • e;,·i ! ',: specified/ 1 in the summons or wherP s11r.h period hns . been extended in accornr1nr.P. w if h t hP prov j RO to that sμb-rule, within t.hP. prin<l nf such extension; the court mr1y, · . ,i: ; ·t\·.:. (a) where the cl;:d.m is for r1 liq11irlr1t.ed snm not exceeding one tho11sr1n<1 shillingr-;, upon proof hy affidavit or nrl AviPnr0 r,f Prvie of thP summons, P.ntP.r ju<lgPmr->n I in r ;.1vo11t .. of t hP pla:i.ntiff wi.t.hout-. rpq11iri119 lii111 In prnvP hiR ·claim; 1 1 ··::·.•.

: .• f: •''. ,· .. '.. ~ ·! ·' . . (b) .in any other caAe, fix r1 r1y fn,· PX-parte proof ,;,and may· pronounce, jml<JPmPnl in favour of the ,:·plaintiff upon such proof nf hi rl r1im". I have· laboured throu_gh ;:in ext.eni:m q1Jnl i nu n f t hr-> re 1 p,,;-rnt ::1· provisions for_'clarity an<l nmoval nf·,·n11f1,:inn. As pointed out the relevant mrn,monR i :=:i::11Prl to the nefendant- was a summons.jo fil~ a defence. Tt iR clPRrly mRrken that it is issued under OV, Rue 1(h) CPC whirh prr--Rrrihr:>R 1·he corresponding O.VIII'Rule 1(?.) to whir·•h ;:1c1,,in n.VTTT' RlllP 14(?) applies. Under these rules, once thP r•L 1 i111 i~ ;hnve 1000/::: (fbP sum claimed here is .,990,000/=) thP r'.n1n t m.::1y pr1RR ;rn expRrt.P judgement on a nay f ixen ;:rncl· upon ex-pr-n 1"' 1,rnnf of t.hP cJ ;=ii ins hy pJ.;iint j ff. However, as the court. onlpr· rl.:.:i I ..-,1 Q\ 4 \ qf; ;m,1 q11nl Prl ahove demonstrates this wr1s not thP r.RRP hr->tP. HPre t.hP court flct.ed aFJ if the summons i i:merl WP.rA R11n11ur-11,'.·, In .-:ippp;:n- 11nrlP. r· O. V .· Rule 1.(a) CPC wjth t.he correRpon,linn 0.'1TTT. R11lr-• 1 (l') f'.Pf'. i11 1.•1' - . which case the court coul rl simply pronnmwP j11rlgPmrnt unde,~ O.VIJI, Rule 1_4(1) CPp. The two prorprlt1rPi~ preRcdhed for t-.he 2 different type,s of• summons - s:;ummonR to ;:innr>Rr r1rnl summonR to ·.< • . • -: - - file a defence·, are quite distinct. ;rnrl 111111 hP fol lower] if thP. resultant ·orde .. rs\dec(sions have t.o hr1vP ;.rnv fnrrp of lr'lw . . ':.. ,· ·._.tt,·:,·i::,·· .. ·· . ,; :· 1•1· ., . : -I ; I find it unnecessary to der1l witl1 nthnr minor issueR raised. The cumulative effect. of the r1hovP rl i ~~r·n!=:tRed flaws cannot lerJve the ruling of the trial court. rlr1h•rl f;_f;\Q7 t.o st.;:md. Tt. is ·'·'•· accordingly quashed and set asine. AR thP t- r i R l court. purporte<l r'- ',· t.o rli.smiss all. the appl i.cntions t.hr1t WPl·P f i l P.11 hAfore it. on ;:ippeal, in terms of sect.ion 76 f'.Pf'. thir r•11111·t iR RP17.P<1 wit-h powers to direct. otherwise in the intpt·psf or j111 ir.P.. Tn thP. premises I order as followR:- (aJ the trial court.'R exp;nt.P- jmlgPmi:>nt <1,:if-Prl q\4\96 is set. aside . -· : ... ;,'. .· l2 : \f . ·· /:· ·;;_1 :.-' t;;:j); ~ .. ':~1. . ;_f.;f

. ' . i f .• ;_ • ! r •' , .:,i • ;} · >:\H b )\ the :,:attachment. order in rP!=:pPr:•1· nf thP. AppP.11 Ant's : i:j1' !·:';_:·t.; • ·· :.i;::tj-· .... " :"; .. :,., .. ' : i· ··:f-, ···houses and 'mot.or VP.hi r,) P. i R r1(•r•nnl i ngl y rni sen. ; ; . - . :• . . i·'r<• ... , • -: : ·'•·· • I (c) the .efendant i.s given 10 rlny r1fl.Pr ,lelivery of judgement. in which 1·0 filP. hi~~ wr·it·.ten st·r1t.P.111rrnl· of defence. (d) thereafter thA t.rir1l r.n11rt t.o ,lr->fr.>rminP. the npproprii=it·p t.:i.mA w:i t.hin wh.i r.h thP. pl a i 111 i r r 11:1 In f i 1 P ;l r·Ppl y, and, (e) the suit to pror.ee·d t.o f11ll hP:11in<1 on mPrit· hefnn~ ;.1 another magistrntP. (f) consideringthe naturA of thP mtt·pr er1r.h r1rty μto'bear own costs. '.;,:(;,. ,: . (: ,. Jf.l} :1:;f!·i:,, ··,":Mf ' ,TtJnGB (T,. "R. KnlPCJP.Yrl) .11mr.F: