| dc.description | VOLTALIA S.A. FRANCE V. NEXTGEN SOLAWAZI LIMITED COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (Mwambegele, Fikirini, and Makungu, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.272 OF 2019
(From the Ruling and Drawn Order of the High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division of Dar es salaam, Sehel, J., dated 13th December,2018 in Miscellaneous Cause No.01 of 2018)
Civil practice and Procedure-Appeal-record of Appeal-supplementary record of Appeal
Civil practice and Procedure-Appeal-record of appeal-certificate of delay-defective certificate of delay-whether the appeal is proper before the Court.
This appeal arises from the Ruling and Drawn order of the High Court of Tanzania (Commercial Division) at Dar es Salaam before Hon. Sehel, J. (as she then was) dated 13th December 2018 in Misc. Commercial Cause No. 01 of 2018. In that case the respondent petitioned to the High Court to revoke the submission clause in the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Agreement, entered between the parties. It was respondent's prayer before the High Court that the dispute be filed in the court of relevant jurisdiction in the United Republic of Tanzania and alternatively the court appoints arbitral forum within the United Republic of Tanzania to determine the dispute. Appellant resisted the petition and in doing so she raised a preliminary objection on several points. However, the points of objection were overruled. Having heard the matter on merit, the High Court granted the petition by revoking the submission clause of the EPC Agreement. The appellant was aggrieved by that ruling and orders of the High Court hence this appeal.
Held;
(i) In the instance the Registrar of the High Court miscalculated the days spent in preparing and supplying the documents to the appellant the Certificate of delay is invalid.
(ii) More often than not, the Court denied to grant leave to the appellant to file supplementary record of appeal where it is found that the appellant had not either written a letter requesting for certified copies of proceedings, judgment and decree or has not served the said letter upon respondent in terms of Rule 90 (3) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, R.E 2019, that disentitles the appellant to rely on the exclusion period under the proviso to Rule 90 (1) of the Rules. As such even if a certificate of appeal is issued, it is inconsequential to the appellant.
Appeal Adjourned.
Cases reffered to;
1. ABSA Bank Tanzania Limited and Joseph John Nanyaro vs HJORDIS Tammestad, Civil Appeal No.30 of 2020 (unreported)
2. Njake Enterprises Limited vs. Blue Rock Limited and Another Civil Appeal No.69 of 2017 (unreported)
3. Geita Gold Mining Ltd vs. Jumanne Mtatuni, Civil Appeal No.30 of 2019 (unreported)
4. Martin D. Kumalija and 117 others vs. Iron and Steel Ltd, Civil Appeal No.70/18 of 2018 (unreported)
5. Mohammed Issa Mtalamile and 3 OTHERS VS. Tanga City Council and Another, Civil Appeal No.200 of 2019 (unreported)
6. Andew Mseul and 5 others vs. The National Ranching Company and Another, Civil Appeal No.205 of 2016
Statutory provisions referred to;
1. Section 3A (1) (c) and Section 3B of Appellate Jurisdiction Act, cap 141 R.E 2019
2. Rule 2, Rule 90 (1), (3) AND Rule 96 (7) of Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, R.E 2019.
Mr. Gerald Nangi for the Appellant
Mr. Jovinson Kagirwa for the Respondent | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | (i) In the instance the Registrar of the High Court miscalculated the days spent in preparing and supplying the documents to the appellant the Certificate of delay is invalid.
(ii) More often than not, the Court denied to grant leave to the appellant to file supplementary record of appeal where it is found that the appellant had not either written a letter requesting for certified copies of proceedings, judgment and decree or has not served the said letter upon respondent in terms of Rule 90 (3) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, R.E 2019, that disentitles the appellant to rely on the exclusion period under the proviso to Rule 90 (1) of the Rules. As such even if a certificate of appeal is issued, it is inconsequential to the appellant. | en_US |
