Ramadhani Nyoni vs M/s Haule & Company, Advocates [1991] TZHC 1 (17 January 1991)


Mkwawa J: This is basically an application for leave to appeal out of time to this court and stay of execution pending the appeal. The applicant was sued by the respondent D before the resident magistrate's court at Kisutu whereupon judgment was entered against him. He now seeks to appeal to this court against the decision of the trial court. The applicant has, however, learnt that as he has filed his intended appeal outside the legal permissible period. He has therefore to obtain leave of this court to do so and E hence this instant application. This matter proceeded ex-parte because the respondent's advocate refused service summons on the grounds that this application was set down for hearing on 11 April 1991 and not 15 January 1991. This being the state of affairs I find F myself compelled to mention that this new date was set down consequent to the applicant's application for an only hearing date under certificate of urgency.
The applicant in his affidavit in support of this application has deposed that judgment against him was delivered on 30 May 1990. On 9 June 1990 he went to the Civil Registry G of the Court of the Resident Magistrate at Kisutu with his relevant papers to have them filed for his intended appeal to this court. He further avers that the court official refused the said papers on the grounds that time for his appeal had already expired.
On rebuttal the respondent has through his counter-affidavit challenged this instant H application inter alia on the following grounds:
   (i)   The affidavit does not disclose source of information.
I    (ii)   The chamber summons is misconceived and/or founded on no law.

   (iii)   The applicant has not raised sufficient cause to support this application. A
I have carefully considered the arguments raised from both sides. There is no doubt or rather dispute, as it is rightly pointed by the respondent in his counter-affidavit that the B application does not state under what provision of the law this application is brought. But this state of affairs is understandable as the applicant is a layman and had no assistance from a counsel in bringing action. As this is an application for leave to appeal C out of time and stay of execution pending the determination of the intended appeal, it is reasonable and fair to treat it as an application brought under the provisions of s 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act 10 of 1971 and Order 30 Rule 5(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act respectively. D
I have further noted other irregularities in the deponent's affidavit taking into account the most celebrated case of Standard Goods Corporation Ltd v Harak Chand Nathan & Co (1) where the defunct Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that when an affidavit is made in information it should not be acted upon by any court unless the sources of E information are specified. While dwelling on this matter I understand that procedural rules are intended to serve as the hand maiden of justice and not to defeat or frustrate it, and it can be denied that the strict application of the rule in question may in certain cases amount to legal formalisation. In the light of the foregoing I am of the settled view F that this Court like any other court worthy of the name has the duty to look into the matter sympathetically with a broad mind and most realistic approach. In order to do justice to the case, especially in a case where a layman, unaware of the process of the machinery of justice, tries to get remedy procedural rules should not be used to defeat G justice. In my view the irregularities in the affidavit are curable by the provisions of s 95 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The basic point for consideration and determination in the instant application is whether the applicant had reasonable or sufficient cause on which this court may exercise its H discretion and extend the time for appeal as there are no reasons why I should disbelieve the applicant's explanation. Having regard to all the facts and the circumstances of this case, I find that the applicant has shown sufficient cause for allowing his application. In the result leave to appeal of time and stay of execution I pending the determination of the appeal are accordingly granted. The applicant should

file his appeal to this court within twenty one days (21) from this date upon paying the A usual fees in time.
The matter to be mentioned before the Registrar on 2 February 1991 with a view to fixing a hearing date. The results of this ruling should be brought to the notice of the respondent. Order accordingly. B


▲ To the top

Cited documents 1

Legislation 1
1. Law of Limitation Act 3540 citations

Documents citing this one 0