Kesi ya Mbowe: Jaji hana mamlaka na document yenye wrong citation. Court of Appeal ilishaonya mara nyingi

Tayari njia ya kujivua na kosa kesi hii imeshapatikana ni Raisi tu kuwapigia simu na kuwambia yamalizeni yaishe.
Yaani ni Golden chance kwa Raisi Samia Suluhu,kama lilivyo jina la baba yake ,Suluhu basi hapa ndio amkong'oli jaji kumwambia fanyeni kesi dismissing .kazi iendelee.
 
Msitegemee lolote zuri kutoka kwa Liganga. Ametoka Mwanza kwa Ndege, first class, amekuja kwa ajili ya hili tu! Most likely anakaa Kempinsk, five star hotel bure, analipiwa mahela yote hapo hotelini ontop of Per diem kubwa ya bure, lna ULINZI wa polisi 2, leo utegemee atende haki? Jiulize kwani hapakuwa na majaji Dar?
 
Tatizo hatuna mahakama tuna matawi ya CCM
 
Mawazo yako tu hayo Mkuu. Mama ana roho mbaya kuliko hata Jiwe. Sema kauficha kwenye ushungi.
 
Nini kifanyike Mkuu kwa ushauri wako???
 
HII KESI YA KUPIKA ALIYEKUA ANAWEZA KUIPINDISHA NI JIWE TUU ,KWA MAMA DPP INAENDA KUVULIWA NGUO KWEUPE.SI MTAONA LEO
 
Hategemewi jaji bali sheria,wrong citation haiamuliwi kwa utashi wa jaji bali sheria tu.

Akipindisha sheria basi mawakili wa Mbowe na wenzake wajitoe ili waamue watakacho.
 
Majaji 90% walioteuliwa na meko ni janga la taifa,wengi elimu ndogo waliteuliwa kimkakati kulinda ccm...mahakama yetu imekua ya hovyohovyo inaongozwa na majaji vilaza tupu,angalie feleshi na siyami hizo nafasi wamepewa hawana uwezo nazo kielimu,unawaacha majaji kma sumary au Dimelo ambao ni wabobezi
 

wrong citation iliwahi kufuta kesi yangu High court na Nikapigwa cost​

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY AT MWANZA

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2019

(Arising from PC Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2018 which originated from Bupandwa Primary Court, Civil Case No. 27 of 2017)

WILFRED JOHN................................................. APPLICANT
VERSUS
PAULO KAZUNGU............................................RESPONDENT
2tfh May■ & 0tfh July, 2020.

TIGANGA,
..........................I must say that the law regarding this matter is well settled. It is to the effect that the wrong citation as well as the non citation of the enabling provisions renders the application incompetent. This has been stated in a number of decided cases when the court was faced with similar circumstances as this one at hand.
For instance in the case of Hussein Mgonja versus The Trustees of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference, Civil Revision No.02 of 2002, CA (unreported), the Court of Appeal when striking out an application on the ground of incompetence stated that;
"If a party cites the wrong provision o f the law, the matter becomes incompetent as the court will not have been properly moved" Also see,Edward Bachwa & Three Others vs The Attorney General & Another, Civil Application No. 128 of 2006.

The applicant herein moved this court by citing Order IX Rule 9, Order XLIII Rule 2 and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code (supra) as enabling provisions to set aside the dismissal order, however, it is clear and from his own concession that the cited provisions are irrelevant hence amounts to wrong citation.

Although the applicant has urged this court toinvoke the oxygen principle and focus on the substantive part of the matter stating that the wrong citation does not go to the root of the matter, this court, with due respect, does not share the same view. The gravity of the error in citing a wrong enabling provision was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of China Henan International Co-operation Group versus Salvand K. A. Rwegasira, [2006] TLR 220, where the court held that;
"here the omission in citing the proper provision o f the rule relating to a reference and worse still error in citing a wrong and inapplicable rule in support o f the application is not in our view, a technicality falling within the scope and purview o f Article 107A(2) (e) o f the Constitution. It is a matter which goes to the very root o f the matter

With the above quoted principle, this court concludes that the wrong citation does go to the root of the matter and since this application has been preferred under the wrong provisions it is therefore based on the wrong legal foundation hence bound to collapse. Having discussed as above, I hold that the first limb of objection regarding the wrong citation of the enabling provision is meritorious and it is therefore sustained.

Since this objection alone suffices to dispose of the application, I hereby do the same by striking it out with costs.

It is so ordered,
DATED at MWANZA this 06th day of July, 2020

Ruling delivered in open chambers in the presence of the parties in the presence of the parties as per coram.


J. C. Tiganga Judge 06/07/2020
 

wrong citation, haijawahi kuacha kesi salama.​

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY AT MWANZA

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2019

(Arising from PC Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2018 which originated from Bupandwa Primary Court, Civil Case No. 27 of 2017)

WILFRED JOHN................................................. APPLICANT
VERSUS
PAULO KAZUNGU............................................RESPONDENT
2tfh May■ & 0tfh July, 2020.

TIGANGA,
..........................I must say that the law regarding this matter is well settled. It is to the effect that the wrong citation as well as the non citation of the enabling provisions renders the application incompetent. This has been stated in a number of decided cases when the court was faced with similar circumstances as this one at hand.
For instance in the case of Hussein Mgonja versus The Trustees of the Tanzania Episcopal Conference, Civil Revision No.02 of 2002, CA (unreported), the Court of Appeal when striking out an application on the ground of incompetence stated that;
"If a party cites the wrong provision o f the law, the matter becomes incompetent as the court will not have been properly moved" Also see,Edward Bachwa & Three Others vs The Attorney General & Another, Civil Application No. 128 of 2006.

The applicant herein moved this court by citing Order IX Rule 9, Order XLIII Rule 2 and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code (supra) as enabling provisions to set aside the dismissal order, however, it is clear and from his own concession that the cited provisions are irrelevant hence amounts to wrong citation.

Although the applicant has urged this court toinvoke the oxygen principle and focus on the substantive part of the matter stating that the wrong citation does not go to the root of the matter, this court, with due respect, does not share the same view. The gravity of the error in citing a wrong enabling provision was stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of China Henan International Co-operation Group versus Salvand K. A. Rwegasira, [2006] TLR 220, where the court held that;
"here the omission in citing the proper provision o f the rule relating to a reference and worse still error in citing a wrong and inapplicable rule in support o f the application is not in our view, a technicality falling within the scope and purview o f Article 107A(2) (e) o f the Constitution. It is a matter which goes to the very root o f the matter

With the above quoted principle, this court concludes that the wrong citation does go to the root of the matter and since this application has been preferred under the wrong provisions it is therefore based on the wrong legal foundation hence bound to collapse. Having discussed as above, I hold that the first limb of objection regarding the wrong citation of the enabling provision is meritorious and it is therefore sustained.

Since this objection alone suffices to dispose of the application, I hereby do the same by striking it out with costs.

It is so ordered,
DATED at MWANZA this 06th day of July, 2020

Ruling delivered in open chambers in the presence of the parties in the presence of the parties as per coram.


J. C. Tiganga Judge 06/07/2020
 
Huyu jaji haheshimu hata vifungu vya sheria tena huyu ndio jaji anayetetea vitu visivo halali nadhani anataka kupandishwa vyeo
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…