Richard Alexander vs George Mwakalukwa (Civil Case No 143 of 1991) [1991] TZHC 2132 (25 July 1991)

.,,. :N THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVJL CJ.SE No.1#Pi OF 19~ It ICHI\RD AL.EXANDER .•• ' ••• ~ •••••••••• 0 •••• B...AINTIFF lERSUS QEORGE ., r.1,,, · 1 .Kf.J., UKWA • • • • • i, • il v •• • •••• • • • DEFENDANT -··--- f_JL ING Mackanja, J.., Mrs. MuJ.ebya 1 learned counsel fo~ the respondent, has Ui"ged me to dismiss -this applitatin because she believes that it as been lodged out o:f timeo This preliminary objection · has been raised in the respondent's counter affidavit in which Ms. Mariam Joyce Mcharo opposes an application for leave to appeal to the Court.of Appeal of Tanzania. The ruling which the applicant intends to appeal against was delive:cad on 22nd October, 1993 and the application for leave to appeal was fil0d on 15th November, 1993J that is 35 days after the ruling was delivered 0 Mrs Mulebya has •> • submitted, quit correctly for that matter, that Rule 43 (a) "'. of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules re.quires·. that an app:l'-•ation 1.ike this one - ·: .• ··;:._: 4 ·· •( , ·t·-'. .be ·.t'fl:d ... with:1,n 14 days •·<>!'· the d.ec1s1.on which.it is sought to be cheJ..1enged on appeal: In her view she 6.ontends that the application is titne .. barred, _., . - The respmi.dent does not thiJ:l$~~' because he filed the notice o:f his intention to appeal; 3rd November, 1993,·.a that he was furnished with a copy ·or ttle ru.ling on 5th November, 1993 According to him time began to run from the date the copy of the ruling was furnished to him and not wpen it was delivered. The application i\ therefo.t wi th.i'.11 time. , ~ \ . ...,,'Ii.I. . ' •: ,...._ ... ' .. ,,, . ·., \ Now Rule 43 (a) of the Tanzaia .~ of A:ppeaJ.. ~~a is quite clear on what it requirs to be done and1when, !t provides:- - •·i:..; ··tt- - . ·. '.i ♦ j · j ·1 ·:, ' ' 1 " 1, .... •,· .. 4 ,j , ... ,r .. ---1 •> _.f:I. ·,-•I . ·~- .

• 2 - 43 In Civil Matters- ·(a) Where an appeal lies with the leave of the High Court, application for leave may be made informally, when the decision against which it is dGsired . to appeal is given, or by chambe'tr' summons,: according to the practice of the· Hig]t Court, within fourteen days of the decision;" So the applicant. had two options; to apply informally, that is orally, immediately after the ruling he seeks to . - appeal against was delivered on 22nd October, 1993. Altez:-n~~ · tively, and according to the practice of this court, he would have lodged a formal application by chamber summons supported by an affidavit, as he has done, within forteen days from thel2.nd October, 1993. It follows that the application for leave to appeal has nothing to do with the notice of intention . to ppeal.,- although both .must be done within their .ibed time •. It is quite clear, therefore,that this app1--i1tion is time-barr.ed because it '!'las filed 35 days after the decision . ·•· ... _1sa±nst which it is intended to appeal was delivered The appl.ication therefoe fails and it is dismissed '\d.th cos.ts.- Delivered. Absent:. Absentt: For the Applicant Advocate;, r the Respondent.. . -·:·· ~~-: ~ .• - ' r ,. ... _.

] i- DI '1 1 I.2 EICt!: cr>"D:,:'.'J! OJ' TAllZAiHA AT Dl'u:. ES SALA.Ar{ crvIL CLSE :rr1:, 95(a) OF 1991 ,1A SALc.--:Iill ITUJ J AT ••0000,ooo•O•ooo•••o•t PLA.Ii:Ji 1 I7F' Vo:csus ADDUW1.RI?1 Ff.tlruT;L trGO IYL •••••oooo•oo••••o DTI!FEITDJl-1.,,...L' -RDLir::G ?,lrCWAWAJ- J • , . . ) L ThiG is un a:)plic.?,iiion :?0x c: tc.:11;ora:ry injuction order. Tl:.o application !.:.ns been bruuc~,-~ n1c 1 .0:r Order 37 Rulo 1 <'.:11.cl 2 a.net O:rdo;r 43 Rule 2 -of· tho Civil Proccrlt'..!B Code. Tl:c applic:int/plaintiff L1 t!.:.is r.1:1ttor is t: .. :o r.10·.'.:0z-.;.in-1aw of t!:.o rcspondent/dcfenclc-u1t 0 I·:; iEl oor..1non ground tJ:crt so::1eti::1e in 19C7 t!:e .:i.-:iplicnnt hnd lorw.1~'.od. ·!;ho :ros;iondcnt/dcfcndant u sum of shs. 500,000/ = to enctblc !d:::1 to 11urc:.asc a l:ouso. Sttbsequcntzy the :rosponc.::mt/defenrJ.ant, !.i wife Ql'lc t::c 2:,.,plicruit/plc'.'..intiff livod in the fore:.Jontionod lJ.Ouse. n · io also not in r!is::u:tc t!·nt tl-.o_ resi)On(1cn·t/defcnd.ant is still i.l1.:'.o:1tec.l to JiiJ.'-o "'->pliC<'..J."lt/:;:l·:-.intiff for :t.:.o sa.i:: loan. It Lns 'I.Jeon cve:rr<:cl by t! 0 .o GI'lilican-ii/::;lo.inti:ff t )·at t' o· """0,onl1 en·i./c. 1 e,-f-'o•n·· 1 •1 ·,·'· 1·c• ·'·'·:-c·,·'1,·0,,..1· 1 ., •.. t, ,,r1'tch 11,r {'I'OLl J1,·'l•c -c _ .. ,4,.,;.;)J,,, _. ,.,. t,i .: J.. .1 L;.(..-.,.IJ O IJ~ _ _. '--~ J..L •-'l.:) ; ,t',I ...... --'-' ... -• saic.l 1:ot.1B0 w: .. icl:. .:..:: now i11·i;c:.1:".n •;;.::, sell. It iG t::is rrn:iio of o.ffaira wLich proo1 tocl t:o ap:.,.:1icmrii/::l ... L1tif:f to inti·cuto t:o::::o ii1stc:mt prooccdin03. T!ic '""S'•o.1·1•1G 1 ·"t/rlcfo,1,''1"'•:·. 0' ,-•.l)PCS .,., 1·'"' •i;v·,11· c-,·'1,·1· on· T7c ',,.,.,. ,. ... ..., .:.,:" ,,._ J..t .,,. ,. ... LC.....o.J.u .L'J • .:.J .._ '-'-·• a.; '--"'.1.".C' U • -• ..... l... furt!:cr clonicd t:.:..c c"\llcG,.,_tio1 ·c::.o: l.'.O is in·i;on-1inc: to sell t~~G said Louse. Both il1 :is cou;.rtcrLl . .::vit .mcl in tLo course 0f' -:u !1cnrinc of t!lis applicution !::.e :.::1s !J...':..int2,inGc.l tL,t tLo -:l)lic2;.r •s clcira ngainst hin is not in ros;.,0c·i; c( t __ G lwuse bv.t for -t;:..o r.1oncy b.c Lael bo:.--rowec.1 · fro.u ::,er. iY.01100 1u cm113c ~ 0 ,:,,s been o .0w11 ns to . ' wl•y n...'1 injuction orclcr sLoult1. :Jo issued rcstrcinin2,· :.1iu frcD quiet and free cnjoyaont of his !:roi,cr'o3r (hot,zc) • The oain point for consic1.9r,,:ion 2.11'1 clc·i;cr.:.1inr,ti0n in ·Lis oattor is whether· t:-=.:ce a:ro st1.:.:::·ici0nt grom:i.ds ·l;o warrcuri; t1:is court to erant tho tc,.1.1ora;i:y injP.c:·ion or(1..or- so s_oug:i:t. I Lave given careful consiclcrntion to -~.' .. c o.rgur.1cnts rniscd 1.iy botl., siclcs. . .. /2

L ' . . It is coor:ion erouml -'Ghat tLo <'-P~-'licnnt/plnintiff hns insti tutcc't pr0occclines in ts:is c~:iu-t o.&'<'-in.:,d; -:c :rcspondont/dqfcnc.1....--u1t for tb.o rco0vor-J uf t:.:c oonio::i c;iv-on ·co the resi'Ondcnt/clcf'cnclc.-mt n.s a loan fur the FL:U'c:1asc of ·i;;:o l:ouso now no question. 1 rhc:rc is no clouut, in t:1,; right of -::.e f'oN30no fnc·i;s!I t![lt tLo applicant/ plaintiff -has f"iducin:ry in-iicros·i; in the l:osc. Du:b tJ .. o:rc is a far er,; froo ::}ayin[ tL2.t fJ':.c s::.c:u]L :.1uw dctoruino fur t.'·.0 rcs;)ondent/ dofonc.lc:.·uri. ow : :o olloulcl tmo -.' 10 ~ .. 0r!So ho ::.o.d purc?.,.o.::.:oc1 froo tL.e 1.:1.oney he ;acl t :ken cs n. lom :tror.1 t,c ni;;:;,licnnt/i)lain-i;iff. Desidcs, t110re is not::i:.1 0 tu suggest t::r-.:~ t.'..'.C 8.-j.Jplicnnt •s stey in the Lt.;USC w.:i.a one of· i;2J.u concli tiom: iDi•<.n:ccl on tho resr-c.mc1ont for socurinc . the lonn. TI.r:v·iric so I::.olcl 02..:.1 i·[; ::iuw be saic.l tw:b t;·:o.rc arc su!ficion-'i; B':row.1ds to nllow ·l;J.o L1stl'.i1t Gici-liction. I !:Q.Stcn to· answer in tl.o noc;ativc.· His DY vi0w tl:.2.t t::.o a:plicnntts-stey in tho :onso in qttc::d;iun is qd :;·c ii1cl0poaclont frou t::,.o 1onn aclvnnccd to -::c _ros1jow::oirt/clcf0ml.:mt. This boin.; tLo sta.to of affairs I ,1:.1 fci.r fru::i beinf; -,o"'S"'-2.clcd tLn-';; t:o:ro arc any rounda • t0 wn.rr2n- t:i □ cuurt· ·l;o l'CS"G'.i:s"'.-in ·:;Le rcs:.:cnCont/c1.ofcnd.ant fror:1 puttinc; no1,r ·l;onmits or sollinc; -Jo ::::.:i.id lcv,':3c. I nn ;:'..lso net l)OrSU21.loc1. -:·..,_-l; t:c n:-;1)1icrur;;; Lao rn.isocl sufficient grounds to wurra.n- t?.1is ·cour'.; -~0 invoke tl:,e ~:rovisions of Order 37 Rulo 1 ,ncl 2 of tLc Civil Prvcod.1..tr0 Coo, 1966. With ui.1.foi{.:,'11Cc.l rcsrcct to Mr. Kin[:,1..1.ji, t!10 lc;:,..1noc.l aclvocntc for ·Lo c..~)plicnnt, I fintl no ocri t in this ur;i)lic,,tion. J.J. Mkwawa. ~~- Court: Rulin;:; pronounce(!. il1 ·c_',.0 ;1--osencc of ·t:.c rs1rhcs who hnvo all D,pprovod in :)on::011. 25/7/91 J .,J. Fikvw,wa. lml::rn:.