Philimon Peter vs Paul Chacha (PC Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1990) [1990] TZHC 319 (19 November 1990)

SEKULE, J. IN THE HIG·-1 COURT OF Ti.NZJ-1.NL, ( J?C) CIVIL APf'EHL NO. 140 .JF 199.C (From the decisi0n of the District Court -:.if 6ereng2ti District at i'iugumu in Civil hppeal i'-J .)o 2 7 ;£ 1980 Philimon J?eter •••••••o•••o••••oooooooa .-,r)pellant Versus JUDGMENT The appellant in this appeal hud institutect a suit agc:iinst the respondent, Paul Chacha in the Kenyana Primary C:>Urt. He was claiming damage fr.)m the respon1ent for .:idul'c8ry. He contended that on the 3rd of J3nuar:•' 1988, he returnd horn,:: at 2 a. m. fr0m a wedding ceremony an1· fuur.:i :lhe respondent cJmmi tti·ng udul tery with· his wife. After the appellant had filsj h..i.s suit, eff;:irts wer"'" made: 'ct.., serve the respun1ent to appo2ar in Court uni defeni the suit. Th(:So 2fforts however were not fruitful and it was saL:i that th2 rcs:.:,nrh:nt 1-121s purposely avuiding service. An-i after the suit had been a1journci a number of tir,1. .. ,s lu:....: to the the non2 appc:arance of the resp..:ini ent ,/appellant ap:;:,li.:d .:; nd 11-s ~LI. :,wed to prove his case ex-parte in terr.1s ..;f Ru:!. e 23 (a) vf the hJgis·cr.Jt2s Courts (Ci Yil i?roct::1ure in Primary C:)1.1.rt) Rules 1964G 'I'he appellant then a11uce1 evi1ence in suppJrt -:.if ·::1"i1..: suit ·anct the trial C'.Jurt then unanimously entered an ex-parte juigm2nt L: fuv.)ur of the appellant. appear · . It wou11Ltne responient 1i1 not ta.ke steps in tim,. 'c-::i s-2cJ: tc. s1::..t asi1e the e:le.·-parte judgment that was · entere•i .:iga.inst him,. ;.n'\ instea1 he s0ught to appeal agairist the icision an1 he iii so. nj tha District Court of Mugumu District entertuin4 the appeal ani it wcs ut tho eni of the view that the respon1 en t we: s prevente1 by sufficient c2use to not appear in Court. Ani that th2 <=::-::::::rte proceeiingsLshould hc:.vG been held. The hearing O\lght to ha·,:-2 '.Jee;:1 aijuurned. The appellate District C::);rt: )1.,;:-ortedly using its ·revisi.)nal · - · power 1ecldrei the exp.:.1rfe proceo2-Jings a nullity an·l Jr-le.re· the suit to be triei•ienJvo. i\n1 it is this fin1ing that the appellant is -:1pμea1L1g ,. 9_:inst. ' Both parties appeare1 in person at the hearing :,f this aJ:Jeal ,. __ c ! __ .,

4 . .. ... 2 . . I have c0nsi-ierei the a[)p-ellan;p ":: gr'-mnis of 3,)peal 1 an::~ I r::m uf _ . che · the settl 1:1 opini.:>tl th..:it th~ resp0nient' s appeal t0/Distric t Court .. . . . ' was misconceivei an1·--th"nppellate District Court with r-'..:sp;.;ct-, ho.d no jurisiic tion to entertai.n: .trii·:- ;_tt'er" by' way.·• of app_e3l .,~ s th,.::; w.:cs yet no appeal lying to·i :i __ t __ -r1 -·t_ ... ,-,h __ i- __ .- ·'--·sui·t. · :; , - -- . . :. _. · · . ..;1:.: .::·. I,: . • . :•J.. .,; .i: ••J- ',j • :, If the responie'ht' h;:,,-i ,t>ee_n __ prvent'ei · by,.; go~,d an--J.: sufficient • t • • 1 \j _!; .' ~ •.r-. : . : · • · • •. causes tc atten1 c..,urt,- te course oi::i"er(-·t6 1 him .. was to s,..:;2k :frrn th~ • . · : ,.f r ! .I. • t : ' · • • • i ~ .,

• tri2l Court t.or an ox:1er _ to set asi1e ·-:t:J:ie' :;exp'arte ju igm~rit th::: t was • • ..l. , entered against him in terms of R1:l e ;30 ( 1·) · of·. thE: tk,gistr-:!tcs <;: ::mrts (Civil ·. . ,, . . .·.(. . . . . . .-. . . . . ·. ' _·Prucf:dure in ?rimary Courts), Rules 1964'. ·, Rul:e. 30 ( 1,) r,~a1s :-
• . -. ,: ~ : •. : . . : . ' . . : . "Where a cl<J.im has peen prjve1 ·ani the- -jccisi•m . ' . . ·.• . ····· . ,,. . : · gi ve1:1- against-.thc-; c.lfeniant in his absence, the -: :; j- , '. :. :. .( •• • ·- ,,'. ·I -J . defen1~•t may s.bjet fo the provisions :Jf 3.ny la foJ · he: ti12- eing in '-i-6rce rela~~ng t_; '·the .liriil tation of pr,.c-e~ii·q-;'.'~ apt,ly. to, the Cou;t · . -.fpr an ri-·r.-to se·t-.:.is:i1e···:the°-',;.iecisio~ anct if thC;; • a •, • • ~ h : • • • • : • ·cu:l, is ,satisl\rd, _the:, ·summons:, Wi?S :' O:),t 0 _ c:luly s2rv:e:d • 'l,· .... or th"(::i 1'efen1at W9S "i:;--t::'tented: by, an,y sufficient . ' . .,.. . ; . cause fr.:.,m appt::;a_ring ·wnen-'·-t:h-e:·pr..x:ee1ing was , _ ·,.-: . . --_c--Ile·:i -in 'fo;>nang the c·urt shll me cin ._,,·u1ei 'setttng a,si1e the ,'Jeci-si(?n .c19ar.ns"t -ch;.-"- :• • ''J ,. • . <..; terms as it shall think fit· 11 • ,·.· • .- .- . .,. .. It· is ther,;;fur~ eviieht that the 'iepcinient. dii n.J h.:i ,:2 t..;, - .'.';.:-.:.c:l 1 .• ni h8 :pad ns right to app_eal as the trial Cuurt was st.i.1:. seized·:..:,:: CdO), .. tc..nt to handle the suit. :i:'t woul ::! _appc::(~ the responient appearei 2.fter tr __ ~ six w~ :iks ,·Ji"c:hin which he c0ul'i ·have appli,d to set asiie the exparte j'J.igmunt. But_ th,j fact that he was. out of time in applying t.J set ::i:si1c·.: thG e:x~i:.:rtc -:1.ecision 1i,i nu-t: :;gi:-- hiin -~ rigl').t ,tu· appeol to the District. \ \ Wha~ the responieht shuli have 1une wast apply t~ th~ ti2l \ . . :.. . . Court to be alluwei tc, file his aoplicatL;n t:) set usiic th: ;:-:r::ire ,.jμiRment out :Jf time. .1;.n.j in that applicati-.)n he W:.Jul j h,wr. it1.;.mizur;1 , \h,;tn.:o.s:ms that l-=-1 tu his --J.eL'l/ ir. 3eeking to se: asiic .:h,.: C!X~)-rte// - juigmant for the Court's consiir3.tin ani iecisioh. _ Thrt£ftr if/ ' . .. I,.,. I ' his applicutin were allowe--1 :-:L'. \Ol'i.-1 then have m.Jvei t0 th~ m"xt ·stage,· Le·. filing ari' a-pplicaticm tc set asiie the exparte judgment.· \ ' For it sh0ul i be J:?;.:;.rne in mini th . .+.. '::he Court ho.1 iiscreti·Jn b., ~xtcnt ·, the time of limitati,:>n to enable -c.h,;2 resp:.mient to fil-2 his u;::j)licntiun to set asiie the exparte jui.gment if it were Sdtisfi.•.:i by thE.; n:Si)On1ent's rc::s:.ms of delay. _ See Rule 3 ( 4) :"Jf the Jvl,:igistrates CJurts (r,im.i·:::z.ti:m of t'r,)ceectings unier CusL,mary L.;1w) Rult::s 1964.

3 Rule 3 (4) reads.~~, pr6c1,=e1ings Ji!fter th;- ; :i_)i'ra.tion of the . . pl::rio-:l' of 'i•ii'tati,in °if it is stisfL.:1: . .. :_ , ..... · r . . -: .·: . r.:. ... 1•; . ·_., :: that th_c :persJh":oring'i-'ng· such _pr--ceeiings . ~ . . ... . . L- ;; ; ·: :: . was unabl~, J;pr sufficint cause to bring the proc::ee1ichgs_ 1 •i >; · ;v .· .. 1.. I ,am tho:r...:.f0re satisfie1' for the ieaE;:.m .. set' .:.JUt a-b-.)ve th3t- :'.) "'.,.'·pc.:i1l . " t '• 'I t • ,. " I. ) \ v lay to the District Co:ur·t :-in this matter cini ut that";-.,tuge. • • 'I. • ' I< • I • • • ~ •; •• ~ ; ! • I wculi ani-19 hereby ther2for set c.1siie th,2 iec-isi.m .:rn-·l'·th.~ . .l'.'--:lers of the o.1ipellate District Court which i"t i?Urport.·tiy m.:d~ in this matt-=!r. . . . :, . . . . . . ,!.,!.' . . ~ • . . -- And the c:>eparte iecision of the trial C :mrt is 0ereby rest-:,r,=1.,. The rt:,spon·ient if he is still uggr.ievei by· ·the exparte iecisi ,;n is u1vise-j to go bak ;to the trial C-.Jurt ani upply £.irstiy tr~ be: :.11ow0c1 to J • cimc. And there after un-j if ·-his ·appl ic3tion i~ success-ful· he will th-.n i2eision. Oth;.;rwise~ in the me.mtim,2 t}1c·-,,-parte 1cisi· ... m- ,..Jf the trial Court remains :;__, valii an1 effective. This··a);ie.:11 theref;)re succeeis-. allowei with costsa ,·.:: 19/ '.1/90 Dci.iv2rt0.j in the pr1.?sence of: thf= · l)arties -<.m-2-this rt t 1'\usonn., r 19th November 1990. .J .. :. ... . JUQGE

--· .. : .... . . ,,,. . ;