Charles s/o Seatano vs Nekwa Maganga and 2 Others (Misc Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989) [1990] TZHC 465 (18 October 1990)

-H--c . h- -A-I?- - 9 s: IN T.:IE :IIG".i.I COURT 0::' Tl11TZJJlIA 1:rsc. CIVIL li.PPF'.J.L NO. 6 OP 1989 (From the decision of the District Court of Senerema District in Civil Appliction No. 3/39 - Before S. R. WENFURDI'E, Esq. D/M) -d-;f--LA-A-y>-, p CH.ll.BLES S/o· SE/:'.I'ANO u .-;; .... , .... , ... n •••••• APPLICUIT ''· ... . , . 1 ._ ll'.lilC'.';};, W1,<JJTG/i, '. ~ .. 2 •. JOSEPU KITULA ) 3 • KtMUTI MilOZA ,. ) _ -· . . Ju D a tr E"N T SJ!Jtut,11} P .,.1 • .. - •. a:_: if is lltl .appeal ·_.",fi?,int the decision ot: -'he District ·court of :-Sngerema 1,.n Oi,vi.:f Applioa·tion ·lfo;,;J/89· in w11icll the said Court ·dism;i.ssed the appellc.11tt s . . . . . . "... ·::· : .. . . ~ u-ppliotion to s,ppel out ot,.time • . ' iwellan•b Wl.'l,S o:r.igi11aJ.ly the plo.intH'f n Civil Cas·e No.23/88 in the /31.mci ,fcirr,,rz:y Cc,urt.,, . ilc was suing for a_ ehamba. · Goμ-ig by the rec~~ f that $.tit, tl,10 ele de.f encte-..r,:',.; .in th<>t av.it we,s the, 1st_ ,respondnt n this· Appeal, ree. Wrr,P.lnga, It is not :eaeily disoen&,ble hc;>Jv. and at what time t11e other to ~~r6Ptmd.ente · in this a.pper,1 came to be map.e .?, ps,ty to the ·suit. . . . »a thllt n.s it ma,y, "Jill£ appellant lost the suit in the Primary Court. . . . Ile· thus. souj4t to appe1.11.l to ·-the ·District, Court. Ile,•14as however late t process _ nnd fi1e hia nppeal. lie acardingly filed ihe abovemont~~~ed application for lOJ'i-VC to Q.p_pee,l out of time. ., • '' ,-; • • I • ,4,eQoffitng to the ri,!ling ·of tae Sengerema D;t.strict 9ou;-t- ·he was late • 4, • ' • • to fil,4,· M.1 r,i,ppe~,1 toz, a pcriod of sixteen <iaJrs,. In the District Court ,~~ wol,f NJ ttJ -1.iis memo,:un of appeal, the appellant contends -'ili2-' he was J.24to "eo :ti.lo hil-1 .in•endGd a,ppeal bccse he was sick. lt Wl4 ii}'pv,;·; · llo produced a treatment c.'1it 1-i1ic21. the District Court 11oj£;Ctcd. t,oe9use it o.W, 11o"li contr1in an address of the dispensary fa.at had ts.c,uod -it •. . i, '; //,; tho· 1181'.!l'ine o:'1 this appeaI', - the -ppellah·i e;ppoarcd in person - so 4td tho respond.ants11 T'.:lc appellant continued to contend faat it is siclrness wliioll owsad his delay in filing his appeal. Tiio other grow1ds of appoal were not r0lovant t t:iis stage -as tllGy referred to tJ.10 merits -of. the tri;:,.,1 Court's decision ma/Gtors .w:i~c4_.could -onJ;-y :ho considered. at the ~.ctua,l hearing o:P ·~he appea.1 if leave to a:'.)pco.1 were granted .. The respondents 011 t1J.c other hand, 0011to11cled tlic::.t tho app011:",ntwas not sick.-

__ .... - -- . 2 I il.n,ve c"rofully conf-1i(.0rod the ;.1ppell::>.i1"i;' s c;rot1.:;1cls of appeal :ts well ::is ·';he po..rties I subIT'issions ·Je:':'orc t!J.i.s Court ?.n:'l. I· am of t1c view t1; 1 t tho appelll'J1t fn8.Y inci.ced hF.!.VO bco::.1. p:roventod. bJ ::n.cknsss to file h:j_s appeal in time, p[-1.I'ticulnrly when one considers the rol 0 1tn·1y S::1::i:r-t imc for i;;llicl1 the appcll:.lnt ,fr,s out of' time in ?Hing his appeal., Accorchng to the Ru.line of ti.1.e District Court, the appclLnt tendered 2, trontmcnt c:.1H and in my view, this C!lit should no·li l13Ve been rejected outright as t:..1.c, District Court seems to hnvc done. I·c could lnve sougb.JG. :for cl ,,rificc1tion or vorific2tion wi Jlil rcg£J,:rd to tho ai1.,thontici ty or .,a,-t.:101"WJ.sc o.f t!.2:1.t chit before rejec-ting it~ . Unf'ortv.natoly. I h;::-.vo no·~ been able to sec t:12,t c::..i t.. It would D,J,;;co.x it was not fil~>d.. in the records t1r-:i; ·.1•vo b~~n • ms-.dc 2-vaiinble to. this Court. I run tb.er,.foro of tl10 opinion tlnt ·Gl1c appollm1:c 11.;:.s i1r0vcntod by rcnsonabl0 o.nd aufficiont ouse to fil0 ll.is ::-,pe.nl j.n time, i.e. sic:1css,. I h"'.Va-·nrlso perused tllr: record of tl10 tri::i.1 Co_urt, 2.n.d I 2m of t:.io view t1a"- t!icrc nro some matters of cviC: c;'ico whic;1 -m.i:::-ht w:=i.rr::.nt to b0 looked into and considered on n.ppcal. - . ~ asiJ.e I uoulcl ru1d do l'lc::roby -';;l1crc:';oro 2,llow this o,ppo2..1· I set·- / tho decision o:f ·t:10 DioJi;rict Vourt. L,nd k.e -pp01l::!nt .s hereby gr2;.-rucl leave to appc;:i.l out of timo to tho District Court of Songore1na-, Diotric·i; • . ,1.ppcnl allor10d 'wit:l cocts., __ -. ,,.¼-·-~.- ,··: . ·, I j\ . . 0 f: . .-<- ~'\ . ~/"( ... , ·... ~ ··:: .: •. ~ 'i;·.-,• I' :T •· J..1... ,.:>Ei:'-1JLE JUJ)GE .---- -: 1'2/10/9◊ Delivcrod. il1 the presence ·of t:lo inrtios on. tlli. 13-'c:.~ c_~:: 0 r of October 1950 • • ;··... ' • ' f", At M1r2rtzn, 18th Ootobcr,19900 : "" __ .,,... .. ,. \ .. r' • ,, .. •'•, .. ,i--' ✓ ~r i •(" .. ,.. .,,, ::,.·: r ... ... f ... ~ Ct:-;~~~ W. ::::: • SElUJLE JUUGE {1t,, ':-:1