Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, Sophia Chitundi, sought an extension of time to file an appeal after her case was heard in her absence due to lack of summons. She claimed she was unaware of the judgment date and was unwell from 5th January 2022 to 19th February 2022, followed by a period of seeking legal representation. The respondent, Frednand A. Chami, argued the applicant was negligent and that the judgment was lawful. The court granted the extension, finding the failure to notify the applicant prior to the ex parte judgment constituted sufficient illegality to justify the delay.
Issues
- The third issue examines the legal principle that the existence of alleged illegality in a judgment can be a sufficient reason for extending time, as per the case of Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence vs. Devram Valambhia and others. The judge emphasizes the Court's duty to address such alleged illegality to ensure justice.
- The second issue involves whether the applicant's reasons for delay—being sick from January to February 2022 and subsequently searching for an advocate—constitute sufficient cause for an extension. The respondent argues that the applicant failed to account for each day of delay, citing the case of Micah Elifuraha Mrindoko vs. Bank of Africa Tanzania Limited.
- The first issue concerns the applicant's claim that she was never served with summons to appear at the date of judgment, resulting in an ex parte judgment. This is supported by the case of Willow Investment vs. Mbomba Ntumba and the Civil Procedure Code's Order XX Rule 1, which mandates notice to parties before judgment.
Holdings
The court granted the applicant an extension of time to file her appeal, ruling that the failure of the Trial Tribunal to provide notice prior to pronouncing an ex parte judgment constituted a legal illegality. The judge emphasized that such a failure violates mandatory procedural requirements under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, resulting in injustice to the applicant. Citing precedents, the court held that where a judgment's illegality is in question, the Court has a duty to extend time to address the issue and rectify the record. The applicant was given 30 days from the ruling date to file her appeal, with no costs ordered.
Remedies
- No order for costs was granted under the circumstances of this application.
- The applicant was granted an extension of time to file her appeal within 30 days from the date of obtaining the copy of this Ruling and Drawn Order.
Legal Principles
The ruling applied the principle of natural justice, holding that the failure to provide notice to the applicant prior to the ex parte judgment's pronouncement rendered the proceedings illegal. This aligns with Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates that trial courts give notice to parties or their advocates before delivering judgments. The court cited Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Devram Valambhia [1992] TLR 185 to affirm that when a decision's legality is at issue, the court has a duty to extend time to address the matter and correct procedural injustices.
Precedent Name
- Ms Casco Technologies Co Ltd vs. Kal Holding Co Ltd
- Swabaha Mohamed Shosi vs. Saburia Mohamed Shosi
- Principal Secretary Ministry of Defence and National Services v. Devram Valambhia
- Micah Elifuraha Mrindoko t/a New BP Kilwa Road Service Station vs. Bank of Africa Tanzania Limited
- Langael Sangita Marx vs. Board of Trustees of Medical Stores
- Gideon Mandesi vs. Charles John Mkanga
- Willow Investment vs. Mbomba Ntumba and Two Others
Cited Statute
- Land Disputes Courts Act
- Civil Procedure Code
Judge Name
Khalfan
Passage Text
- 'We think that where, as here, the point of law at issue is the illegality or otherwise of the decision being challenged, that is sufficient importance to constitute sufficient reason...'
- 'the requirement to give notice to the applicant before a judgment is pronounced is provided under Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code...'
- 'In our view when the point at issue is one alleging illegality of the decision being challenged, the Court has a duty... to ascertain the point and, if the alleged illegality be established, to take appropriate measures to put the matter and the record right.'