Juma Pembe vs Omari Mbaruku (PC Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1983) [1988] TZHC 434 (2 August 1988)

. ' / ! IN' T.l:l.G IIIGII COU1.T 07 r:;:ijiNZAil"IA AT DAI"t ES SALAM[ PC CIVIL APPTI;AL HO. 2 OF 1983 JUMA PJI:l'DJ;J 1 6., o o e • o o o • o o" ot1 ,o "',. ~ o o o_e, o e •? 11., ~ •• RU LI N'G; BAIIATI 1 J1- !I1hc cb.w·,lbo:;,.• c,pplic2tion in -;;J.ri.B oe:.sc is supported by s:i.:: d'fidavits. ED.oh o.ff'idaVi-t ia verified in the :fo'J.lo1rine- 1-rords1 .. . 'li·flUJ..t is stated G.bovo is trv.o to the bos·t of my lu10F1ccle;o, informo.Uon r,nd belief. n ·It is not ci.to;.:11 uMch Pnl'Q&T.:'..pno mo according to tho dcponct 1 s 01m knowledge .ond uJuc·: pn.ra.graphs ro:"o o.ccording to Jchc dcpon01rb 1 s iltforio.tion and belief in cc.ch of tho six ci:fid.['..vi:i;s filed. 'Iha nffickvi ·iir:J n.:rc bad in lro-r nnd CO.lll1o·i; be '.'-C"Jod upon for ·i;hoy offend tho provisio1w of Order 19 · I rule 3(1}. whic~::. sfo,fos ".Atticbvi·i'is· shru.l be confi11cd. to such f2,0ts cu the deponent is able of llis m·m knowledge to prove, o:;;:oopt on i1'1tcrlocu-'co:ry a.pplicn:'cions 1 on 1rluc_;:.. s·i;o..tomonts of his belief lilaJ'" be admitted• Provided tb.n.~ tho g-.cot.w."'l.ds thereof o:ro s·k:ccl.+ 0 I:urtb.ormm•os i·i; is now I think csJcn.blishod by aut}1ori·liics ·l;ho;l; nn o;l:'fidn:vi t must n:.,oiT as -i;o which. st:cmcirts nro deposed in -t.1.ic lcr1mrl odg<l of the . , deponent nno. to dticll stn.tomcnt be deposes on informction [',.11cl belief. A court will not c.,ct on en ci':,';'idn:vi t which docs not comp]Jr ui th the D..1Jovc mentioned . . . · proooduro. Thio is the import of tho decision in Bombc:,y J?lo__ Mills v Chuni,bhg.:i,, Patel (1962) E.A., · 803,. I.,_ follows f1•om tho c1bovo th..'.lt the c.1:>plicn:liion is· incompetent c!lld. i• is dismissed i:-ri-:;;J_ costs,. :DAHATI) '··,,. , ·-, JUDGE 2/8/88 Courts Ruline;- dcliYcrod in prcsc:.100 of Miss Mn.ndn.ri for t:ic ppliconts but.in ·cli.c; -tl20 ruling ;is road ,I"