ISSA OMARI MAPESA VS. JUMANNE SEBARUA. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 189/01 OF 2021

Abstract

Held; 1. Submissions are not evidence but information expounding on the general features of the party's case. The Court restated this principle based what was decided in the case of Khalid Mwisongo v. M/S Unitrans (T) Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2011 (unreported),

2. The intended appellant is required to serve notice of appeal before or within fourteen days (14) after lodging notice of appeal as stated in Rule 84(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules,

3. Failure to serve the notice of appeal in compliance with Rule 84 (1) of the Rules cannot be described otherwise but one of the grounds in failure to take essential step as envisioned under Rule 89 (2) of the Rules. The Court re-enforced its earlier decisions as stated in the case of D.P. Valambhia v. Transport Equipment Ltd. [1992] T.L.R. 264, Salim Sunderji, Capital Development Authority v. Sadrudin Shariff Jamal [1993] T.L.R 224 and John 6 Nyakimwi v. The Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Musoma, Civil Application No. 85/08 of 2017 (unreported),

4. The intending appellant is required to serve notice of appeal within the prescribed time under Rule 84(1). Then he is expected to lodge a record of appeal and memorandum of appeal within sixty (60) days, unless there is a letter written to the Registrar requesting to be furnished with the necessary documents and that has been served upon the respondent as per rule 90(1) and 90(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The consequence of serving the opposite party with the copy of the letter written to the Registrar, is to allow the intending appellant to take advantage and enjoy the exclusion of time provided under Rule 90 (1) of the Rules by being issued with a certificate of delay, which will allow filing the intended appeal. Application granted and the notice of appeal was strike out with costs.