Capoil Tanzania Ltd vs Jamal Ahmed and Others (Civil Case No. 24 of 1995) [1998] TZHC 2165 (2 July 1998)

IN· THE HIGH COTJH'I' OF TMf.l,\Nii',. LT Dli.R ES .S.Uv\fa.M ,, CIVIL CJ.S.E NO o 24 , 1 0F 1995 i CtPOIL Ti.N7,fd.\JII' ... LTD I 1., J f.Hf.L A 11.HIOO & 3 OTHERS e.• , .. .0 e O. 00 0 0 .. DEFEND!,NTS RULING Mackanja, J.; 'I ,,1 " The respondent brought a summP,ry suit·, urnier Order XXXV of the Civil ! .1 Proceiure Code for recovery of a sum of Sho 180,292,162/=., The suit was basGcl. nn dishonoured cheques. l'ill applicatton 11 /or leave to defend the suit ,, I wns dismissed and judr:ment o.nd decree were 1 1 :passed in frtvour of the respondent. - I I This wo.s on 22nd Octn1.:er• .996.. Two days J!ater the applicant's lerned 1 1: coupsl, Dr. Masumbuko Larrrwai, filed notic¥l/irr 1 tention to appeal against the t.Yecution cf the decree. It is while the a.ippeal is still pending before '1 ·1 the Court of Appeal, so it would appear, th,b ;l)plicants have filerl an application they refer to ns one for ::- refe'tbence under sections 77 anri 95 1i of the Civil Procedure Code,. ,,. 11 Mro Maj i thia, learncJ counsel for the tesponrlent, has re,ised three ' .. ', points of objection a,7,ainst this applicntiofi~ 'First, that the 2-pplicants because he.ve no right of m.J.icnce in this applicc.tiio/ heir applicn.tbn for lenve to c1.ppe.3r .:.uld defend the suit was dismissed.· Second, that havinc: given n notis,; of intent ion to appo2nl the matter moved to iihe Court of Appeal, so that I l · this court hRS no jurisdiction until the appea.Ji! is f:i.n?:.lly cfoterminGc.le ,, Indeed Rule 9(2)(b) (')f the Tanz,:mia Court of, Appea.l Rules st:-,tes thc!t po 1 ,:er i to deo.l with executfon 1 )f ::lecrees while e.n 0'1,:)pee.l is pend ins in respect of that decree· e.lso is v estcd in the Court of Appe::1.l. I application h3.s been iJrouc-,ht under the wrons;·; 1awo The matter froGl n d.ifferent ansleo ii' ' :,! Mr., M::..gafu of M/S Hor<oMo La.111\rmi & Co., 'I II Jldvocates, Thirclj th2.t the applicants sec the contends th-:lt the prelim:i.nary objections 2.re devoid of merits becuse despite the fact thnt the applicants were not eiven leave to defend. the suit nnd that upon I, delivery of judsment they filed notice of their ,:intention to appeal 'I I• t b t . ,,:, f ·1· 1 · t. ' ' 1 f ', 4-• • ~ k' canno ar nen .Lrom 1 ing an npp ic:.:::. ·ion :Je: ore •~his cour" see ing I I rectification of errors thnt were made ,iuring the process of executing the decree. I. I' i

2 Fbr it is his contention Un.t the intended appe-21 is base-:1. on the merit cf the decree .::ird. net on errors th2t aros.:? during the execution cf the decree • .So it i,s their contention tho.t the District Registrn.r• q order that all•)wed third parties to the proceedin3:s to o¢cupy ttie suit premises which they impUGn in thi,s applicntion is quite· r1roperly 1-:-efore this court. Wh?..t is obvious fr0m the record is thht th.ere is o.n q:1.ppec1.l, at least it is intended tho.t there 1,Jill be one before the Court of f,ppeo.lo Once th2,t is the position the enti:ce proceedinr.; that is impuc;ned before the Ccurt of l,p-peal is removed to th,3-t court. The ili1.h Court '.Cannot, thereo.fter, purport- t{1 ·issue any orders in respect nf th,-:,_t 'mqtter. Once, as it was hel-J in :1.ero·Hlicopt~'r-·(T)"I:fclv. F.\ 1 • Jnns·en, (CoIJ Civil 1\ppliction No. 12 of 1990 (unre-ported) tlnt thi.s C0urt b.1.s no jurisctiction to order stay of executicm of a rn.?.tter th--,t is pmJ.inr, ::n appeal before the C,Jurt of f',ppeal, nothinc; ,,/ncthever s,u1. be '1::>n? to such a m.<:ltter while so pending. In this connectbn I ::unpersuaded. to 11.¢ce1:it Hr. Mnjithia's proposition that this court does not hc;.ve jurisdiction to yntert::,dn this application. I w-:.ul:l dismis,s the -::i.pp1icJ.t ion on this point o.lone. 11.ccordinLly the rrpplic::i.tion is dismissed ,.rith oost.s., Ruling t'.' 1 )e delivered by tho District Registrar. 26/6/1998 Cor2-m: Mshote - D}~ Mc:lj ithio.: Y)r the i?lointiff Mr. Mag2 .. fu: For th0 Defen:l.:-:-nts J. M. Ma1;kc1.nja JUDGE

18/6/9:J court: Rulinr; deliverecl in chaml;ers this 26th June, 1996 in the presence of Mr Maj ithia for the ,"1.t:Plico.nt ,:1.nd Mr. Magafu for th~ defondrmt. -." ,. . '"",. ,, ' , 11 h t . /'' ;:,-··.,:,4 .. , S. ') e ·;.;HICT ?.EGIS;I'(t:.R This is a certified true copy cf the Ori~~inal. \ \ i