Zambia Cargo Logistic Co LTD Vs Tanzania Tea Blenders (2002) LTD Another (Civil Review 27 of 2018) 2019 TZHC 36 (17 October 2019)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

AT DAR ES SALAAM
CIVIL REVIEW NO. 27 OF 2018
ZAMBIA CARGO & LOGISTICS

COMPANY LIMITED...................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
TANZANIA TEA BLENDERS (2002)
LIMITED....................................... 1st RESPONDENT
YUSUF NAWAB MULLA.................. .2nd RESPONDENT
RULING
Date of Last Order: 13/6/2019
Date of Ruling: 17/10/2019
S.M. Kulita, J.
This is an application for review filed by the Applicant, ZAMBIA
CARGO & LOGISTICS COMPANY LIMITED (Formerly MOFED
TANZANIA LIMITED) against TANZANIA TEA BLENDERS (2002)
LIMITED (1st Respondent) and YUSUFU NAWAB MULLA (2nd
Respondent). It originates from the Land Case No. 49 of 2017.
The applicant is represented by the Learned Counsel ELISA ABEL
MSUYA - Advocate while the Respondent is represented by the
Learned Counsel BENJAMIN MARWA - Advocate. The application
has been made under S.78 (b) and O.XLII, r.l(b) of the Civil
l
Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E 2002] hereinafter refered to as CPC.
The prayers sought by the applicant is for this court to

review its ruling and order dated 12/8/2018 and set it aside as it is
in error.
The source of this application for Review is the Court's order

granting the defendants' (respondents') prayer to file their Written
Statements of Defence (WSD) out of time after the lapse of 42
days, contrary to O.XLII, r.l (b) of the CPC.
The matter was disposed of by way of written submissions.
In his written submission the Applicant's Counsel submitted

that as per O.VIII, r.l(2) of the CPC the WSD is supposed to be
file within 21 days from the date of service of plaint to the
Defendant. He said that before expiry of that 21 days period the
defendant can pray for extension of time and 21 more days can
be granted by the court.
The counsel submitted that the said period for leave should
therefore not exceed an aggregate period of 42 days. He said
that by the time leave was granted for the Defendant to file a
WSD the said period of 42 days had already lapsed. It was
therefore not proper for the trial Judge to grant extension.
In the reply thereto Advocate for the Respondents, Mr.

Benjamin Marwa submitted that the main suit was filed as a
summary suit. On 12/10/2017 the Defendants/Respondents
obtained leave to defend the suit. Before the defendants had filed
2
the said WSD in 21 days from that 12/10/2017 they (Defendants)
did file a Misc. Land. Appl. No. 144/2017 on the 20/10/2017.
However, the said application was dismissed on 13/8/2018. He
said that he did file the said Written Statement of Defence on
27/8/2018. He said that under O.VIII, r.l(2) of the CPC the
number of days that had passed after filing of the Appl. No.
144/2017 which is 20/10/2017 and the date that the said
application was dismissed, that is 13/8/2018 should be excluded.
On the same date 13/8/2018 when the application was

dismissed the Defendant/Respondent sought for leave to file a
defence in the on going Land Case No. 49/2017. The said prayer
was actually granted that it was to be filed on 27/8/2019 and it
was actually filed on that date. The Respondent's Counsel further
submitted that the period spent in pursuing the Land Case
Application No. 144/2017 should be excluded. He said that even if
the computation includes the number of days between the date of
filing of the Land Case No. 49/2019 which is 11/7/2017 and the
date that the Defendants filed the Application No. 144/2017 that is
20/10/2017 only 8 days has passed. Upon cumulating the said 8
days and that 14 days granted by the trial Judge the total number
of days is 22 and not 42 as alleged by the Plaintiff's Counsel. The
Advocate also stated that even if that is the case still under O.
VIII, r. 1(2) of the CPC the court may extend the period of filing
the WSD. He said that it is under the discretionary powers of the
court. He added that the Judge has also been empowered to do
so under S. 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap. 89 R.E 2002].
3
Mr. Benjamin Marwa (Advocate) also prayed for the court to
regard the Overriding Objective Rules under S.2B(1) (a) of the
CPC as amended by S.3(a) and (d) of the Misc. Amendment Act
No. 3 of 2018. He said that for the sake of justice through the
Principles of Natural Justice both parties should be heard, that it is
the constitutional right. The Respondent's Advocate said that the
grant of prayer to file WSD by the defendant does not lead to any
miscarriage of justice to the Applicant.
In the rejoinder Mr. Elisa Abel Msuya (Advocate) stated that

the procedures are there for the administration of justice,
therefore they should be followed. He said that since the WSD is
supposed to be filed in 21 days period and in case of extension it
should not exceed 21 days as per O.VIII, r.2 the application
should not be granted. He further submitted that the
Respondents' act of persuating an application for arbitration does
not justify that they have to file WSD after the lapse of the
prescribed period. It should not be excluded in computation of
time for filing WSD. He said that the Respondents should not hide
under the umbrella of Oxygen (Overriding Objective) Principle to
vitiate the procedures. He said that failure to file the WSD is a
fundamental error which goes to the root of the case, hence the
overriding objective principle cannot apply.
The essence of this application as per the pleadings and the

submissions is that the Applicant objects the Respondents who are
the Defendants in the original case (Land Case No. 49/2017) to
file WSD. He challenges the order of the trial Judge to allow the
4
Respondents to file the said pleading while the time for them to
do so had expired.
Before going to the submissions I went through order XLII,

Rule 1 of the CPC which provides the circumstances under which
the review may be entertained. The provision states:-
"(1) any person considering himseifaggrieved
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,

but from which no appeal has been preferred, or
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
and who, from a discovery o f a new and important matter or

evidence which, after the exercise o f due diligence, was not
within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account
o f some mistaken or error apparent on the face o f record, or for
any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review o f the
decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a
review o f the judgment to the court which passed the decree or
made the order.
(2).
.............................. not applied.
.................................. "
The above cited provision has been clarified in a case of

ALFRED ANASA SHARA V. TANZANIA
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED, Misc. Civil
Cause No. 151 of 2007, High Court at DSM District
Registry (unreported) in which the case of KARIM KYARA
5
V.R, Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2007, CAT at Dodoma
(unreported) was cited. The court said;
"The principle underlying review is that the court would

have not acted as it had if all the circumstances had
been known. Therefore review would be carried out when
and where it is apparent that-
First, there is a manifest error on the face o f the record which

resulted in a miscarriage o f justice. The applicant would
therefore be required to prove very clearly that there is a
manifest error apparent on face o f the record. He will
have to prove further, that such an error resulted in
injustice (see Dr. Aman Walid Kabourou Vs. The Attorney
General and Another, Civil Application No. 70 o f 1999 -
unreported).
Second, the decision was obtained by fraud.
Third, the application was wrongly deprived the opportunity

to be heard.
Fourth, the court acted withoutjurisdiction (see C.J. Patel V.R

Criminal Application No 80 o f2002)" (emphasis is mine)
The issue to be determined here is whether the WSD by

the Defendants was filed out of time and whether the trial
court was wrong or overlooked to grant the prayer for having
no jurisdiction.
First of all I would like to make it clear that the applicant's
6
submissions that the Judge has no jurisdiction to grant the
prayer for extension of time is a misconception. Had that
been the case Advocate for the applicant was to mention the
court or a person to whom those powers have been vested. I
think it was enough for him to say that the Judge/Court had
overlooked by granting the said prayer. Therefore the issue
of jurisdiction does not stand.
This application originates from the Land Case filed in a

form of a Summary suit Under O.XXXV of the CPC. Basically
there is no WSD in the summary suit unless the Defendant
seeks leave to the trial court and the same is granted. As the
prayer for that purpose was made on 13/8/2018 and on the
same date the court ordered it to be filed by 27/8/2018, that
is within 14 days period. That order was actually complied by
the Defendant by filing the WSD on that 27/8/2018.
The Applicant's Counsel submitted that the Defendants

delayed to file the WSD for over 42 days contrary to O.VIII, r.
1(2) of the CPC whose remedy is the judgment to be entered
in default as the Defendant has no more chance to lodge the
WSD. He further said that even in the exclusion of the period
used to entertain the Misc. Land Application No. 441/2017
which was dismissed on 13/8/2018 still the Respondent is out
of time for over 42 days which is the maximum period for
filing the WSD after the lapse of the first 21 days. However,
as rightly submitted by the Respondent's Counsel that upon
excluding the period used to entertain the Misc. Land
7
Application No. 44/2017 the number of days had passed
before the court had granted the order for Respondents to
file WSD is 14 days, that is from 13/8/2018 (date of order) to
27/8/2018 (date of filing). Therefore there is no delay of over
42 days. Even if we add the eight days from 12/10/2017 the
date that the Respondents were for the first time ordered to
file WSD before they had lodged the Misc. Land. Application
No. 441/2017 on 20/10/2017 as an alternative to filing the
said reply (WSD), the total number of days becomes 8 plus
14 which is 22 days.
All in all the fact that the prayer to file a defence(WSD) by

the Respondents (Defendants) was made on the 13/8/2018
and the same was granted on the same date that they were
to file it in 14 days period, it means that was rightly regarded
by the court as it's initial order for that purpose. That being
the case the previous order to file WSD issued on 12/10/2017
before the Misc. Land Application No. 441//2017 being filed
on the 20/10/2017 was overtaken by event. The said
application had come to substitute that order as it's aim was
to stay the original case (Land Case No. 48/2017) pending
determination of the dispute between the parties through
arbitration as per their lease agreement that had been
entered between the parties.
In that sense there was no need for the Defendants to

lodge the WSD. That's why the records in that Land Case No.
8
49/2017 do not show any claim by the plaintiff (Zambia Cargo
& Logistic Company Limited) that the Defendant was yet to
file the WSD so that he could be served and file a Rejoinder
(Reply to WSD) thereto. Instead the Applicant came up to
raise it when the Respondent's (Defendant's) Counsel
informed the court on 13/8/2018 that he intends to file WSD
for that summary suit regarding failure of their application No.
441/2017 on that same date. It therefore comes into my
mind that the idea of objecting the Respondents/Defendants
to file WSD by the Applicant/Plaintiff is an afterthought.
As I have already pointed out that O.XLII, r.l of the CPC

expresses the circumstances under which a review may be
entertained and the cases of ALFRED AWASA SHARA V.
TANZANIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
LIMITED (Supra) and KARIM KYARA V. REPUBLIC
(Supra) made the thorough interpretation of that provision.
Having carefully gone through the said provisions and the

cited cases I have noticed that the sought review does not
solicit this court to rectify any manifest error on the face of
the record which resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or
address fraud or that the applicant was wrongly deprived the
opportunity to be heard and or that the court acted without
jurisdiction in respect of the Land Case No. 49 of 2017.
In upshort I find this application does not fulfil the
9
mandatory requirements for review according to the law. It is
therefore dismissed with costs.
S.M. Kulita
JUDGE
17/10/2019
10

Zambia Cargo Logistic Co LTD Vs Tanzania Tea Blenders (2002) LTD Another (Civil Review 27 of 2018) 2019 TZHC 36 (17 October 2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zambia Cargo Logistic Co LTD Vs Tanzania Tea Blenders (2002) LTD Another (Civil Review 27 of 2018) 2019 TZHC 36 (17 October 2019)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zambia Cargo Logistic Co LTD Vs Tanzania Tea Blenders (2002) LTD Another (Civil Review 27 of 2018) 2019 TZHC 36 (17 October 2019)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

CIVIL REVIEW NO. 27 OF 2018

ZAMBIA CARGO & LOGISTICS

Date of Ruling: 17/10/2019

The prayers sought by the applicant is for this court to

The source of this application for Review is the Court's order

The matter was disposed of by way of written submissions.

In his written submission the Applicant's Counsel submitted

In the reply thereto Advocate for the Respondents, Mr.

On the same date 13/8/2018 when the application was

In the rejoinder Mr. Elisa Abel Msuya (Advocate) stated that

The essence of this application as per the pleadings and the

Before going to the submissions I went through order XLII,

"(1) any person considering himseifaggrieved

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,

and who, from a discovery o f a new and important matter or

The above cited provision has been clarified in a case of

"The principle underlying review is that the court would

First, there is a manifest error on the face o f the record which

Second, the decision was obtained by fraud.

Third, the application was wrongly deprived the opportunity

Fourth, the court acted withoutjurisdiction (see C.J. Patel V.R

The issue to be determined here is whether the WSD by

First of all I would like to make it clear that the applicant's

This application originates from the Land Case filed in a

The Applicant's Counsel submitted that the Defendants

All in all the fact that the prayer to file a defence(WSD) by

In that sense there was no need for the Defendants to

As I have already pointed out that O.XLII, r.l of the CPC

Having carefully gone through the said provisions and the

In upshort I find this application does not fulfil the

You might also like