THE OPEN UNIVERSITY OF TANZANIA
FACULTY OF LAW
OLW 302
CIVIL PROCEDURE ADVANCED COURSE OUTLINE
KIHWELO/CV/03
GENERAL OUTLINE
This course outline is an advanced one and is designed to impart to law students
the practice and modalities of prosecuting or defending a civil action from the
time one thinks to go to court through to the final judgement. It also examines
the appeal, review and revision as well as references and case stated
procedures.
The course is intended to enable students understand general ideas and practice
of civil litigation and remedies available at law to aggrieved persons.
Civil
Procedures are there to guide the parties in their endeavours to solve their civil
disputes.
It is expected that at the end the course, a student will have been well versed
with the niceties of civil litigation, and that, looking at the rigours of civil litigation
in general, it is trite that going to court should be a matter of last resort.
Possibilities of solving dispute out of court should be fully explored before an
individual decides to institute his case in a court of law. This approach minimizes
costs, saves time, and reduces the stress and anxiety that an individual
experience during court actions. You should however observe that this list is
meant to serve only as a general guide. New cases, articles, journals books and
other materials bearing on the course should be added by students through own
1
initiatives. This advanced version of the course outline has been made to cover
cases reported from 1983 to 1997. It has also included recent unreported cases.
However students should be aware that this is not self sufficient as such they
may consult as many cases as possible. The same should apply to textbooks.
PART ONE:
THE INTRODUCTION PART
1.1
What is Civil Procedure?
Formal steps to be taken in a civil action or other judicial proceedings
of civil nature.
Formalities in force applicable in civil disputes.
The modalities of realising substantive civil rights.
Read: Leroux V Brown (1852) 12 CB 801.
1.2
Where applicable?
Only in civil matters – civil suits, petitions, miscellaneous civil causes
etc.
Criminal matters are regulated by criminal procedures
Read: Nanji V. Standard Bank (1968) E. a. 670, 683.
1.3
Sources of Civil Procedure
a)
constitution = if all laws (substantive or procedural) must simply
with the constitution then the constitution becomes the grund norm
hence a source of civil procedure .
Read: Arts. 13 – 30 URT constitution.
b)
Statutes (both principal and subsidiary)
Read: ▪
Civil Procedure code Act 1966 (CPC)
Criminal matters are regulated by criminal procedures
2
Matrimonial Proceedings Rules.
Magistrate Courts Act 1984.
Election Act 1992.
Probate and Administration Rules GNs 10, 107 and 369 of
1963.
Note: Our main focus in this course will be the CPC.
c)
Precedents i.e. decided cases.
d)
Others – Civil procedure books, Records of Parliamentary
proceedings (Hansard), International law, customary law.
Read: S. 2 of 4th Schedule to the MCA and the relevant provisions in the
JALO (SS. 9-9A) on customary law, as well as the Interpretations of Laws
and General Clauses Act 1972, S.3.
PART TWO:
MODES OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
2.0
Here students should be able to identify the various modes of disputes
settlement which were, in one way or the other experienced in Tanzania.
A historical perspective is desirable in this regard. Three modes will be
evident (2:1-2.3 below) and students should be able to state; in respect of
each mode.
Meaning of such a procedural mode.
Its underlying principles?
Whether applicable todate
Social economic basis for its existence and application.
The distinctions between one mode and another.
2.1
Reconciliatory / Arbitratory procedures.
2.2
Inquisitorial Procedures
2.3
Adversarial Procedures
Read:
Lamwai, M. Ph.D Dissertation.
3
2.4
John Magendo V. Govan (1973) LRT n 60.
Mtenga v. UDSM (1971) HCD 247.
Assess the mode of dispute settlement applicable in Tanzania
todate.
2.5
Assess the procedures used during the pre-colonial, colonial, and
post colonial era; show their similarities and divergencies.
2.6
History of the procedure under the CPC
Read: The cases cited above and
Tanganyika Order in council 1920 – the Reception
Clause.
Indian Civil Procedure Codes 1864.
JALO
B.H. Rahim “Civil Procedure in Tanzania (1968) 1 EALR
300.
PART THREE
CIVIL LITIGATION
Here students should address broad issues about the concept of civil litigation in
modern societies: Why should people litigate and for whose interests?
Note: Civil litigation normally reflects a particular values system.
Is this
assertion true in the light of our CPC?
Read: - Mauro Capelleto “Social and Political Aspects of Civil Procedure –
Reforms and
Trends in Western Europe (1971) 69 Mich. L.R. 847.
Lamwai, M. Ph.D. Dissertation, Chapter Three
4
PART FOUR
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
4.0.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN THE APPLICATION OF CPC
The CPC is adversarially styled, hence, all litigants are expected to appear
before the court as adversarial parties.
As a result of the adversial principles above several formative rules
have arisen as follows:i.
Party Investigation it is the duty of the parties to investigate
their case since the court will not do that for them.
ii.
Party Prosecution it is the duty of the party suing or sued to
prosecute his / her case. It is not the duty of the court to assist
the plaintiff or defendant to prosecute/ argue his case.
iii.
Dispotive Election = that it is the duty of the plaintiff to choose
who to sue and for what claim. If the plaintiff decides to sue one
out of several defendants the defendant may not object to that,
save that, he, the defendant, may request the court to join other
defendants left out by the plaintiff. And if the plaintiff decides to
sue for only a small portion he is claiming against the defendant
nobody can stop him save that the relinquished portion may not
be claimed again.
iv.
Liberal Interpretation = the court should always adhere to
procedure but where circumstances require flexibility such
flexibility should be accorded in order to serve the interests of
justice.
John v. Govani (1973) LRT n. 60.
Mtenga v. UDSM (1971) HCD n. 247.
Mawji v. Arusha General Stores (1970) E.A. 137
Waisirikare v. Biraki (1971) HCD n. 12.
Kendal v. Hamilton (1878) AC 504, 525.
5
Joseph Sinde Warioba vs. Stephen Masatu Wassira, & A –
G. Civ. Appeal No. 52 of 1996, (CAT) DSM (unreported)
A. G. v. Lamplough (1877 – 78) 3 EX.D 214.
Southeast British Insurance (1973) E. A. 210, 214.
v.
Retrospective application of Procedures – all procedural
laws can be applied retrospectively.
Benbros Motors v. Patel (1967) HCD n. 435.
Mjige v. The E. A. Harbours Corp. (1970) H. C. D. n. 182.
PART FIVE
5.0
THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
This requires students to thoroughly deal with and adequately diagnose
the provision of the CPC. The best way to achieve this is to divide the
CPC into parts.
5.1.1 Preliminaries – here students should understand that going to
court is a matter of last resort and that certain conditions and or
circumstances must exist before one could go to court, namely:
5.1.1 Parties i.e. who is claiming against who.
5.1.2 Dispute = are the parties engaged in any dispute in the eyes of the
law?
Note: -
Note all disputes are actionable
Legal disputes are different from moral disputes.
Civil disputes are not criminal disputes.
There must be a civil “litis contestio”
Here the role of a “Demand Letter” or “Demand Note” should be
examined.
There must be a civil “little Letter” or “Demand Note” should be
examined.
6
Read:-Rule 61 of Advocates Remuneration and Taxation of Costs)
Rules, GN 193 of 1924 and s. 30 (1) CPC.
Amuradha Construction Company Ltd v. Sultan Street Agip
Service (1968) E. A. 85.
Karimjee & Ors v. Commnr. General of Income Tax (1972) HCD
n. 61.
5.1.3 Jurisdiction: i.e. powers and limits of each court; thus to which
court should a civil case be filed?
5.1.3.1
5.1.3.2
▪
Categories of jurisdiction.
a)
Territorial
b)
Pecuniary or subject matter
c)
Exclusive / Concurrent
d)
Original, appellate, revisionary review etc.
e)
Limited / Unlimited.
f)
Inherent.
- Ouster of Jurisdiction, means and effects of :
Read :
S 13 CPC
Magistrates Courts Act 1984.
Kuluthumu Ally Kara v. Yasin Osman (1968) H.C.D.n
430.
Walulu Jilala v. John Mongo (1968) H.C.D. n 81
Abifalah v. Rudnap Zambia Ltd. (1971) H.C.D. n. 166.
Edward Kalemera v.Muyembe Rwenjega (1968) HCD
n.80.
Plili Jua Bilali v. Abdullah Khalifa [1986] TLR 201
Kihanira Kutunge Kibaya v. UAC of (T) Ltd. Civ. Appeal
No. 15 of 1997 (CAT) at DSM, (unreported).
Zephrin Mgabona v. Jones Kalumuna (1970) HCD n 12.
John Sangawe
v.
TLR 90.
7
Rau River Village Council
[1992]
5.1.4 Place of suing (this is more or less a questions of jurisdiction but
need to be addressed on its own in relation to S.13 CPC.
Read: • K. Y. Juma v. Juma Mwango (1973) LRT n. 9
N. J. Amin Ltd V. B. Patel & Co. Ltd (1969) HCD n. 17.
S5. 14-18 CPC.
NOTE:
Under normal circumstance the SUIT FOLLOWS THE
DEFENDANT OR THE CAUSE OF ACTION.
Read • Ahmed Ismail v. Juma Rajabu [1985] TLR 204.
5.1.5 Statutory or common law bar, i.e. is the suit barred by any – law or
judicial order?
Here students should grasp the niceties of the
following doctrines (including their elements, history, rationality and
effects).
Res judicata – s.9 CPC
Estoppel.
Law of limitation.
Specific Statutory bars e.g. Chiefs (Abolition of offices,
consequential provisions Act No. 53163 and Regulation of Land
Tenure (Established Village Act No. 22/92-s.3.
Read:
- Duches of Kingston’s case 164 ER 175
Bynoe v. Bank of England (1973) 2KB 432, 439
Malik v. Callow (1958) E.A. 99.
Humphreys v. Humphrey (1910) 2 KB 531
Ravinn Chandra Mchanlal & 2 others v. Muhimbili Medical
Centre & another Civil Application No. 106 of 2001 (unreported).
Marginson v. Blackburn Borough (1932) 2 KB 426, 427.
Juthalal Velji Ltd v. T. H. B. Estate Co. Ltd [183] TLR 391.
Ord. V Ord (1932) 2 KB 432.
Village Chairman – K. C. U. Mateka v. Anthony Hyena [1988]
TLR 188.
Barr v. Jackson (1842 1 Y & C Ch. 585; 41 ER 754.
Esso (T) LTd. v. Deusdedit R. Kaijage [1990] TLR 102.
8
Karsha v Uganda Transport (1967) E. A. 774,
Marato S/O Matiku v. Wankyo Sanawa [1987] TLR 150.
Kerchand v Jan Mohamed (1919 – 21) EAPLR 64.
Ramadhani Nkongela v. Kasiani Paulo [1988] TLR 56.
Musa v. Kakoro (1956) EA 189.
Tanzania Knitwear Ltd. v. Shamshu Esmail [1989] TKR 48.
Salemu A. H. Said v. H. Hemeldan (1960) Ea 92
National Milling Corpn. V. Muhigi Wajangi [1986] TLR 37
Meghji v. Odhiambo (1957) KLP 83.
Erizeus Rutakubwa v. Jason Angero [1983] TLR 365.
5.1.6 Immunities and mandatory Arbitration Clauses can also bar judicial
proceedings – explore these aspects.
Ramada Investment Ltd v. Engen Tanzania Ltd, Commercial
Case No. 211 of 2001 H.C. at DSM, (Unreported).
PART SIX
6.0
PRE – HEARING PROCEDURES
6.1.
Parties – this takes us back to our previous discussion but in a
more detailed approach – 0.1.
6.1.1 Who are the parties in an ordinary civil suit?
Plaintiff – who is such a person?
Defendant – who is he?
Read: Felanon (fr.) v. Kalinga (1970) H.C.D. n.259.
Machumilane v. Bushambali (1970) H.C.D. n. 187.
Juma b. Kadala v. Laurent Mnkande [1983] TLR 103.
Imerimaleva & Ors. V. Dima Nhoronge [ 1991] TLR 1
6.1.2 Joinder of parties:6.1.2.1 Joinder of plaintiffs vis. a vis joint interests and causes of
9
action – O,1, r. 0.1.
Abdulah & Anor v. The Official Receiver (1954) EACA 85.
Yowana Kahere (1959) E. A. 319.
Allah Ditta Quaresh (1951) 18 E.A. CA 1
Hassanal (s/0 Somji (1944 – 5) 21 KLR 29.
Strord v. Lawson (1898) 2 QB 44.
Bolton v. Salim Kambi (1958) E. A. 360.
Joinder of Defendants. O.I, r.3.
Read: - Peter & Co. Ltd v. Mangalji & Ors. (1969) E.A. 80, 81.
Juma Kadala v. Laurent Mnkande [1983] TLR 103.
Bank of India Ltd v Ambalal
Barclays Bank v. C. B. Patel Ors (1959) E.A. 214.
Pioneer Investments Ltd. v. Amarchand & Anor (1964) E.A. 704.
Parry v. Garson (1962) E. A. 515.
Fernandes v. Kara Arjan & Ors (1961) E.A. 693.
6.1.3 Representative suits or group action – O.1, r.8.
6.1.3.1 Meaning of a representative suit.
Stages of Instituting a representative suit
6.1.3.2 Where applicable O.I, r,8
6.1.3.3 The difference between O.I, r.1, O.I r.3 and O.r, 8 vs O.I r.12.
Read: Daudi Abdullah v. Ahmed Suleiman (1946) 13 EACA 1.
The Duke of Bedford v Ellis & ors (1901) Act 1, 7.
Warwick v. Queen’s college Oxford (1871) LR 6 Ch 716. 726.
Oxford (1871) LR 6 Ch 716, 726.
Abdallah Juma v. Salum Athumani [1986] TLR 240.
6.1.3.4 Justification for Representative suits
Read:
Commission of Sewer City of London v. Gellatly (1976) 3
Ch. D 610, 615.
6.1.3.5 Substitution, addition and striking of parties 01, O.1, r. 10.
Read: Hassanal s/o Somji v. Krishen Singh (1944) 21(1) KLR 29.
10
Santana Fernandes v. Kara Arjan (1961) E.A. 693
Darphe Parry v. Murrey Aliexander Carson (1962) E.A. 515.
Latifah Hussein Mohamed v. NBC and One Another, H. c.
Commercial Division, at Dar es Salaam, Commercial Case No.
278 of 2001 (unreported)
6.1.3.6 Consolidated Suits
Not provided in the CPC but s.95 CPC could be used to
accommodate this procedure.
Read: Harwood (1926) All ER ® 544.
Stumberg (1970) E.A. 324.
Hilda Merchants (1926) All E.R. 104.
Both (1877) 2 OB 496.
Dominion Trust (1915) AC 254.
Hilman (1876) EX. D. 132.
Prime’s Estate (1883) 48 L.T. 208, 210.
Bake (1970) 1 Ch.D 428 436.
6.1.4 Third Part, Proceedings O.I, r. 14.
6.1.4.1Meaning of: - a procedure under which a party who is not an
original party (privy) to the proceedings is brought into the suit by
the Defendant on the ground that in case the defendant is found
liable the party so brought will have to contribute or indemnify the
defendant.
Read: - Bhanji Laxman Ltd v. National Sisal Authority & NBC Civil
Case No. 60/1993.
Wayne v. Tempest (1897) 1 Ch. D. 110, 113.
Walusimbi v. A. G. Uganda (1959) E.A. 223.
Overseas Tourim Ltd (1962) E. A. 190, 191
Birmingham & District Land Co. v. London & Northwest Railway
Co. (1887) 34 Ch. D 261.
Edward Kironde Kagwa (1963) E.A. 213.
11
Parry v. Carson 1962 E. A. 515, 517-8.
Champion Motor Soares Ltd (1961) E.A. 385.
6.1.4.2 Modalities of initiating 3rd party proceedings.
0.1r. 14(2) CPC
Party v. Carson (1962) E. A. 515.
6.1.4 Consequences of 3rd Party Proceedings.
6.1.5 Parties in special cases:
6.1.5.1 Interpleader suits O.XXXIII.
6.1.5.2 Military Men O.XXXVII
Ally Juu ya Watu (1979) LRT n. 6.
6.1.5.3
Corporation O.XXVII.
6.1.5.4
Firms or persons carrying on business in a partnership basis
O.XXIXX.
6.1.5.5
Trustees – O.XXX.
6.1.5.6
Minors or persons of unsound mind – O.XXXI
Read. Tritoria v. Equity & Law Life Assurance Society (1948)
A.C. 387.
Eboo’s Petrol station Ltd v. Blackstone Utilities (1955) 28 KLR
20.
6.2
Re Lovett Ambler v. Lindsay (1876) 3 Ch. D 198.
Re: Harrison Smith v. Allen (1891) c Ch. 349.
Latch v. Latch (1875) 10 Ch. App. 464.
Sargent v. Gautama (1968) E.A. 338.
Mersey Dock & Harbours Board (1899) 1 OB 546.
Panayotis Nicholaus Contravas (1953-7) 2 TLR.
Institution of a suit O.IV and s.22 CPC.
How do you institute a civil suit?
Read: Mansion House Ltd v. Wilkinson (1945) EACA 38.
12
Mitsui Bussan Kaisha Ltd v. Totaram – Bhagwanda AIR (vol. 8)
1921 sin 166.
Secretary v. Kundan Singh & Ors. AIR 190 Lah 374.
Ratan Jayakisan Shukla v. Bapu Hiraji Kunbi AIR (vol. 24) 1937
Bo. 25.
Pillai v. Amir Shahib & Ors AIR (vol.1) 1914. Mad. 488.
Singh v. Singh AIR 1937 oudh 452.
Ponusami v. Naicker AIR (vol. 16) 1929 Mad. 480.
The Princeline Ltd v. Trustees AIR (vol. 37) 1950 Bom 130.
6.2.0 Framing of suits – O.II to be read together with O.VI, O.VII, O.VIII
CPC.
6.2.1 Cause of action must be clearly set out by the plaintiff in the plaint
O.II, r.1.
Read: Jackson v. Spittal (1870) LR 5 CP 542.
Papps v. Mahon (1966) NZLR 288.
Mulla, D.F. Code of Civil Procedure 1908, vol. 1 (13th ed.) pp.
144, 638.
Melisho Sindiko v. Julius Kaaya (1977) LRT n. 18
John Byombalakwa v. Agency Maritime International (T) Ltd.
[1983]TLR 1.
Bwike Estate Ltd v Lutabi (1962) E.A. 328.
Hans Nagorsen v. BP Tanzania Ltd. [1987] TLR 175.
J. b. Shirima & Another v. Humphrey ‘Meena to a Comfort Bus
Service [1992] TLR 290.
6.2.2 Pleadings – O.VI.
Frame of a suit is generally about pleadings i.e. the documentary or
oral way of presenting one’s case O.VI, r.1
I.H. Jacob “The Present Importance of Pleading” (1960) 13
Current Legal Problems 171.
6.2.2.1Functions of pleadings
13
Read: Thorps v. Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch.D 637, 639.
Blay v. Pollard (1930) IKB 628, 632.
Palmer v. Gudagni (1906) 2 Ch. D 494, 497.
Captain Harry Gandy (1956) 23 EACA 139, 144.
Bell v. Lever Bros. (1932) A. C. 216.
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v. South Port Corp. (1956) AC 218,
239.
Joseph Marco v. Paschal Rweyemamu (1977) LRT no 59.
ODD v. Mubia (1970) E.A. 476.
Zalkha binti Mohamed v. Juma Mazige (1970) HCD n. 132.
N. J. Amini Ltd v. B. Patel Co. Ltd (1969) HCD N. 17.
6.2.2.2
General Principles of pleadings
Specificity
Particularisation
Relevancy i.e. material facts only
Verification
Read:
Philips v. Philips (1878-9) 4 QB 127, 132.
West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. Ltd v. The King (1905) 2
KB 391, 399.
John Byombalirwa (1983) T.L.R. 1
The North Western Salt Co. Ltd v. Electrolytic Alkali Co. Ltd
(1913) 3 KB. 422, 425.
Williams v. Wil Cox 112 E.R. 857, 863.
Cashin v Craddoc (1876) 3 Ch. 378.
Gautret v. Egerton (1867) LR 2 CP 371, 374.
Lumb v. Beaumont 49 LT 772.
Millington v. Loring 43 L.T. 657.
Kanwar v. Jugrat & Anor. AIR 1949 A’mer 37
Rwers Steam Narigation v. Khanta Barika & ors AIR 1934 Cal.
632.
14
The Princeline Ltd v. Trustees of the Port of Bombay Air (37)
1950 Bomb. 130.
6.2.2.3
Imerimaleva & O. rs v. Dima Nhorongo [1991] TLR.1
Striking out, Rejection and amendment of pleadings are judicial
measures normally taken to remedy or deal with defective,
scandolous or undesirable pleadings.
James K. Mapalala v. BBC, Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2001,
(CAT) Dodoma (Unreported.
Read: Cashin v. Cradock (1876) 3 Ch.D 376.
Cracknal v. Johnson (1879) 11 ch.D 1,13.
Knowles v. Roberts (1888) 11 Ch.D 263.
Motohov v. Auto Garage Ltd (1971) HCD. N. 81.
Sulivan v. Osman (1959) E.A. 239, 243.
Shivji v. Pelegrin (1972) HCD n. 76.
Davy v. Garret (1878) 7 Ch. D 473
Eastern Bakery v. Castellino (1958) E.A. 461.
Endevain v. Cohen (1890) 43 Ch. D 187.
Hussein Bhamjee (1977) LRT n. 261.
Panjwani (1971) H.C.D. n. 177.
Hasmani v. NBC (1937) 4 EACA 55.
Price v. Keisall (1957) E.A. 753, 765.
John Byombalirwa v. Aggency Maritime [1983] TLR 1
Clarapede v. Commercial Union Association (1883) 32 WR 262.
6.2.2.4
The Plaint O.VII
O.VI, r.1 defines pleadings to include a plaint, written statement
of defence, counter claims, etc.
6.2.3.1
6.2.3.2
What is a plaint?
How should a plaint look like? R. 1 i.e. content of a plaint.
Return and Rejection of plaint, what distinction.
15
Read:
-
Mitsui Hussan Kaisha v. Totaram – Bagwandas AIR
(Vol. 8) 1921 sin. 166.
Masion House Ltd (1954) 21 EACA 98
Yakub Beg & ors v. Sikander Beg & ors. AIR 1955 Bhopal 6.
Secretary v. Kunda A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 374.
Ramdhari Lal v. Uday Nyaran AIR 1957 Patna 324.
Guruswany v. Ayanar AIR 1947 Mad. 439.
Kamu v. Phundan AIR 1946 All 488.
Arjun Routara v. Maharaja Krishna Chandra AIR 1942 Patna 1.
Mohini Mohan v. Kunjabehari AIR 1943 Calc. 450
Varanda Pillai v. Thillai Govindaraja AIR 1931 Mod. 8.
Mansion House (1954) ZI EACA 98.
Thedi & Ors v. Vaitla & or AIR 1939 Mad. 397.
Ratan Lalji v. Dali Chandi AIR 1954 Hyd. 39.
Mt. Panbha v. Lala Suraj Bhan AIR 1931 All 157.
6.2.4 The written statement of Defence, O.VIII
6.2.4.1 •
Meaning of :-
Content of a WSD
Confession and avoidance
6.2.4.2
WSD by a set-off O.VIII, r.6
Distinction between equitable set-off and legal set off.
Why the doctrine of set-off?
6.2.4.3
6.2.4.4.
Counter claim.
Meaning of
Failure to file a WSD i.e. ex parte proof and judgement
Read: Ngaire v. N.I.C.(T) Ltd (1972) HCD n. 134
Mbogo v. Shah (1968) E.A. 93.
Meyasi v. NBC (1977) LRT n. 42.
J. A. Dias V. Ahmed salum Sweden (1960) E.A. 984.
Otanga v. Nabunjo (1965) E. A. 384.
16
Badrudin Hasham Lakhani & Anor v. Pyarali Hasham Lakhani
(1978) LRT n. 26.
Sanga v. Sandrudin (1977) LRT n. 51.
Posts & Telecommunications Terraro Pavious (1973) E.A. 344.;
(1973) 58
6.3
Kimani (1966) E.A 547.
Warner v. Sampson (1959) 1 All ER 120, 123
Patel Joshia (1952) 19 E.A. C.A. 42.
Fazal Haq (1940) 19 KLR
Recognised Agents and Advocates – O.III
Who is a recognised agent / advocate what role does such a
person play in civil litigation?
Issues of representation should be addressed here and their
effects in civil proceedings.
Read: - Shangara v. Farm Vehicles Ltd (1969) E.A. 588.
Elkahn v. Narshibhai Patel (1960) E.A. 340
Chakubhai v. Patel (1948) 6 v. L.R. 211.
Kiwanuka & Co. v. Wahigember (1969) E.A. 660.
Buyerere Coffee Growers Ltd v. Ssebbaduka & anor. (1970)
E.A. 147.
6.4
Kafuna v. Kimbawe Builders & Contractors (1974) E.A. 91.
Court Processes O.V
The mere fact that a suit has been filed in court is meaningless
if the defendant cannot be summoned to controvert or admit the
claim.
O.Vis basically a realisation of the right to be heard. To realise
this, court summonses are necessary.
6.5
Julius Petro v. Cosmas Raphael [1983] TLR. 346.
Summonses
Who should issue summonses?
Who should serve them
17
Who is required to receive a summons?
Types of summonses
Substituted services and the effects thereon.
Read: - Bawman v. Nadiope (1968) E.A. 306.
William Andrea Shangarai (1969) H.C.D. n. 16
E.A.P. & T v. Terrazo Paviours (1973) LRT n. 58.
Kauri v. City Auction Mart (1967) E.A. 108.
A. G. v. Satchu (1960) E.A. 505.
Shangara v. Farm Vehicles Ltd (1969) E.A. 588.
Jamnadas & ors v. Vaiji (1961) E.A. 615.
Kavuma v. Mehta (1960) E.A. 305.
Pirbai Lalji & Sons Ltd (1962) E.A. 306.
Omuchila v. Machiwa (1966) E.A. 229.
Mohamed Nassoro v. Ally Mohamed [1991] TLR 133.
Kulwa Daudi v. Rebeca Stephen [1985] TLR 116.
Aliraza Husseinali Bhinji v. Galaxy Paints (T) Ltd., (HC –
Commercial Division) Dar Es Salaam, Commercial Case No.
130 of 2002 (unreported).
6.6
Sanga v. Sadrudin (1977) LRT n. 51.
Mbogo v. Shah (1968) E.A. 93.
Appearance of parties O.IX.
Civil Litigation can hardly be decided if the parties do not appear
as directed in the summons.
Parties need not appear in person, they may do so by a
recognised agent or advocates unless the court rules that
personal appearance is required.
Read: - Willam Andrea Shangarai (1969) H.C.D. n. 16.
6.6.
1
Consequence of non-appearance by:-
Plaintiff
Defendant
Both plaintiff and the defendant
18
6.6.2 Setting aside exparte decrees or dismissal of suit orders – O.IX, r.9,
O.IX, R.13.
Read: - Otanga v. Nabunjo (1965) E.A. 384.
Jesse Kiman v. M.C. Connel & Anor. (1966) E.A. 547.
Mbogo v. Shah (1958) E.A. 93.
Evans v. Bartlan (1937) All ER 646.
Patel v. E.A. Cargo Handling Services Ltd (1974) E.A. 75.
Sanga v. Samdrudin (1977) CRT n. 51.
David Samson (1972) HCD n. 148.
James Mapalala v. BBC, Civ. Appeal No. 43 of 2001, (CAT)
Dodoma (unreported.
Jacobs v. Booths (190 85 L.T. 262.Samsudin v. Ladak (1960) E.
A. 1054.
Husseinali A, Bhimji v. Galaxy Paints (T) LTd, Commercial Case
No. 130 / 02 (unreported).
6.7
Amina Rashid v. Mohinder Singh & Another [1986] TLR 196.
Mulji v. Shirinbhai (1963) E. A. 217.
Shamgara v. Farm Vehicles Ltd (1969) E.A. 588.
Shaban v. Karadha (1973) E.A. 497; (1975) LRT n. 13.
Moshi Textiles Mills v. De Voest (1975) LRT n. 17.
Discovery and inspection O.XI; Production and Impounding of
documents O.XIII
Meaning of
Role of discovery and inspection in civil cases
Interrogatories
Rationale for O.XI and O.XIII
Voluntary and involuntary discovery.
Consequences of refusal to allow discovery or inspection
The basis for producing and impounding documents
Read: - Marriot v. Chamberian (1886) 17 OBD 154.
Benbow v. Law (1880) 16 CD. 93, 95.
19
6.8
Re: Strachan (1895) I Ch. 438, 445, 447, 448.
Eade v. Jacobs (1877) e Ex. D 335, 337.
A. G. v. Goskill (1882) 20 Ch. D. 519, 529.
Grumbrecht v. parry (1884) 32 WR 558.
Hensey v. Wright (1890) 24 QBD 445.
A. G. v. Newcastle (1897) 2 QB 384, 394.
Bidder v. Bridge (1885) 29 QB 29.
Aggrawal v. Official Receiver (1967) E.A. 585.
Joseph Kimara v. Iddi Hemedi (1968) HCD n. 355.
Knapp v. Harvey (1911) 2 K.B. 726, 730
Admissions O.XXII.
A party to a civil suit may at any time admit certain facts. This is
either made in the pleadings or in the course of the proceedings by
a NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS U/O.XII, r.2.
Read: Rashid Nkangu v. Ally Mohamed [1984] TLR 46 (Lugakingira J.
Stated obiter)
6.8
Purpose of admission
Consequences of refusal to admit
Rea: - Dhamji v. Lulu & Co. (1960) E. A. 541.
PART SEVEN
7.0
DISPOSAL OF SUITS WITHOUT TRIAL
7.2
Settlements out of court O.XXIII
Condition precedents for settlements out of court O.XXIII, r.3
Read : 2nd Schedule CPC.
7.2
Default judgements.
7.2.1 Where a summons to appear has been issued but no appearance
is entered by the defendant.
Read : Cosmas Construction Co. Ltd v. Arrow Garments Ltd. [1992]
TLR 127.
20
Where the plaintiff fails to reply to a counter claim.
Read: Joe R. M. Rugarabamu v. Tanzania Tea Blenders Ltd [1990]
TLR 24.
Where a WSD is required but not filed.
Read:
Mustapha Raphael v. East African Gold Mines Ltd. Civil
Appeal No. 4 of 1998 CAT at DSM (unreported).
7.2.2 Whether a default judgement can be set aside
Read: Premji Patel v. Jethabhai (1947) 14 EACA 23.
7.3
Summary judgements O.XXXV.
Meaning of
Applicability of summary procedures.
Read: - Zolla v. Ralli Bros. (1969) E. A. 691.
Uganda Transport Co. Ltd (1954).
Cornwell v. Desai (1936) 6 ULR 103.
Hasmani (1938) 5 E.A.C.A. (2) 89.
Kundalal Restaurant (1959) 19 E.A.C.A. 77.
Karageorgelis (1921-1952) 1T.L.R. ® 479.
Mugambi (1967) E.A. 196.
Bubumba (1964) E.A. 613.
Jiwani (1964) E.A. 244.
Anand (1952) 25 KLR 103.
David Samson (1972) H.C.D. n. 156.
7.3.1 Payments into court – O.XXIV
7.3.2 Striking out actions and defences – 0.lir. 18, o.viii r.12, 0.17 r.5.
7.3.3 Dismisal for want of prosecution – O.IX,r.5, O.IX, r.8
Read: - Kaijage v. Byarushengo (1968) H.C.D. n. 351.
Fazal v. Gulamali (No. 1) 1976) LRT n. 35.
7.3.4 Withdrawal and adjustments of suits O.XXIII.
Types of withdrawal O.XXIII, r.I(1) and O.XXIII, r.1(2)
Effects of withdrawal where counterclaim exists.
Adjustments, how done and what effects
21
Read: - Stumore v. Campbel (1892) 1 QB 314.
McGowon v. Middleton (1833) 11 QBD 464.
Vavasseur v. Krupp (1850) 15 Ch. D 474.
Hamphrey Maleko v. Mohamed Salum Civ. Case No. 56/85
(HC) (DSM).
Mohamedrajig Gulamhusein v. E.A. Airways Coporation (1976)
LRT n. 44.
7.8
Stay of action s.8 CPC i.e. Res sub judis doctrine.
Read: • Saleh bin Kombo v. Adm. General (1957) E.a. 191
• Construction Engineers & Builders v. Sugar Development
Cooperation [1983] TLR 13.
O.xx, r.2
O.xxxI r.10
PART EIGHT
THE HEARING
8.0
Examination of parties O.X
8.1
Meaning of
Why examine parties ?
Framing of issues O.XIV
Meaning of issues.
Things to be looked at while framing issues.
Whose duty is to frame issues?
Why frame issues?
Consequences of failure to frame issues
Irregularities in framing issues.
Issues wrongly framed.
Read: - Odd Jobs v. Mubia (1970) E.A. 476.
Nkalubo v. Kibirige (1973) E.a. 102, 105.
Durresh v. Villain (1957) E.A. 91.
Candy v. Casper Air Charters Ltd (1956) 23 E.A. C.A. 139.
22
Blay v. Pllard & Morris (1930) All ER 610, 612.
Jospeh Marco v. Paschal Rweyemamu (1977) LRT n. 59.
Kiganga & Associates Mining co. Ltd v. Universal Gold NL,
Commercial Case No. 24 of 2000, HC at DSM, (unreported).
Bell v. Lever Bros. (1932) AC 161,216.
Normal v. Overseas Motor Transport (1959) E.A. 131.
Kashaga v. Ernest Kahoya (1976) LRT n. 10.
Jan Mohamed Umordin v. Hussein Amarshi & ors (1953) 20
EACA 41.
Chacha Mahemba Cr. App. No. 68 of 1985 (HC) (MZ).
Tanzania Sand & Stones Quarries v. Omoni Ebi (1972) HCD
219.
8.2
Gulam Rasool (1954) 21 EACA 32, 35.
Tuungane Workshop v. Audax Kamala (1978) LRT n. 21.
Disposal of suit at first hearing O.XV
Circumstance entitling the count to dispose of cases at first
hearing
Effects of such a disposal to the parties
Read: - Zaidi v. Humeidan (1960) E.A. 92.
8.3
Procedures when full hearing is desirable
8.3.1 Summoning and attendance of witnesses – s. 26-28 and O.XVI
CPC
How to secure presence of witnesses
(a) By private arrangement
(b) By court summons.
Whose duty is to secure attendance of witnesses?
Defects in summons, what effects.
Additional witnesses.
Read: - Sanga v. Sandrudin * ors (1977) LRT n. 51
Thobias Zenda v. Herman Zenda (1977) LRT n. 23.
Joseph Marco v. Paschal Rweyemamu (1977) LRT n. 59
23
Hillarius Kerario v. Kirabu (1968) H.C.D. n. 201.
Tyan Investments Ltd. v. The U.S.A. (1970) E.A. 675.
Baraka Said Salum (1970) H.C.D n. 95.
Hemed Said v. Mohamed Mbihe [1984] TLR 113.
8.3.1.1
8.3.1.1.1.1
Commissions to examine witnesses O.XXVI.
Meaning of
Purpose of
To whom issued
Who may be examined
Effect of evidence obtained by way of commission
Who is to bear the costs
Read: - Premchad Raichand (1969) E.A. 514.
8.3.1.2
Walford (1973) LRT 59.
Depositions by way of Affidavits O.XIX.
Read: - Project Planning Consultants v. Tanzania Audit Corp. (1974)
LRT n.10.
NBC v. Desai (1969) HCD n. 206
Kibo Wire Industries Ltd (1973) LRT n. 54.
January Kapembwa (1976) LRT n. 7 (1968)
Mtale v. Januar Kapembwa (1976) TLR 7 HCD n. 201.
8.3.2 Adjournments O.XVII
When all the parties and their respective witnesses are in attendance
as directed the hearing should normally continue. But it may happen
that one of the parties or both is (or are) unable to proceed for
“sufficient cause.”
Or it may also happen that the court is equally
unable to do so. In that case an adjournment is inevitable.
BUT: - What is sufficient cause?
At what stage can an adjournment be granted?
What about costs?
24
Can the parties consent to adjournment (i.e. the effect of consent
letter to adjourn)?
Types of adjournment
Sine die adjournment
Periodic and the effects of each on the proceedings.
Defaults in entering appearance after an adjournment, what
effects?
Read: - Shaban Mbega v. Karadha (1973) E.A. 49.
Maskini v. George Mbugus & Anor. (1976) LRT n. 62.
Shyan & Ors v. New Palaces Hotel Ltd (1972) E.A. 199, 204.
Zanzibar Silk Stores (1980) T.L.R. 31
Central Asbestos (1972) 2 All ER 1135.
Mramba v. Ngalai civil App. No. 16/86 H.C. DSM.
The Registrar of Buildings v. Felix S/O Bwogi & Another [1988] TLR
266.
8.3.3 Hearing and examination of witnesses O.XVIII
8.3.3.1
The principle of orality.
8.3.3.2
Burden or proof
8.3.3.3
Order of speech
I.
The plaintiff’s case
a) Opening speech by the plaintiff.
b) Examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.
c) Closing speech by the plaintiff.
II.
Finding as to whether there is a case to answer and the
effects thereof.
III.
IV.
Defendant’s case if a prima facie case exists.
a)
Defendant’s opening speech
b)
Examination of defendant’s witnesses
c)
Defendant’s closing speech.
Final submissions
Read: - Vye v. Vye (1969) 2 All ER 29.
25
Ramsden v. Ramsden (1954) 2 All Er 623.
Frank m. Marealle v. Paul Kyauka Njau (1982) TLR 32.
Alexander v. Rayson (1936) 1KB 169.
Partty v. The Aluminum Corp. Ltd (1940) 162 L.T. 236.
Laurie v. Raglan Building Co. Ltd (1942) 1 KB 152.
Overseas Touring Co. Ltd v. African Produce Agency
(1962) E.A. 190.
Storey v. Storey (1960) 3 All Er 279.
Daikin Air conditioning (E.A.) Ltd v. Hansard University Civil
Case No. 21/76 (HC) (DSM).
Leopald Walford v. Hunter (1973) LRT n. 59.
Premchand v. Quarry Service (E.A.) Ltd (1969) E. A. 514.
Note: Procedure to be followed where there is a submission of
no case to answer – refer to the chart below
Read: - Ramsden (1954) 2 All Er 623.
Vye (1969 2 All ER 29.
Daikin Civil Case 21/76 HC DSM
26
Close of plaintiff’s case
Defence case.
no.
Submission of
case to answer
Opening speech-defendant
(Optional) to
evidence ruling
Examination
Defendant or witnesses
Defendant
Elects to
wait for the ruling
Election
give
before
Overruled court
to write judge
casement on the
basis of plaintiff’s
evidence
Upheld leads
plaintiff’s by
dismissed
Evidence
upheld
Examining his witnesses
Overruled
Closing submissions
Court proceeds to write
judgement on the basis
of plaintiff’s evidence.
Submission
overruled
court considers evidence
and deliver its judgement
8.4
Leads plaintiff’s
case dismissed
uphold plaintiff’s
case dismissed
Where a judge / magistrate fails to complete a case what effects
Read: - Thobias Zandi v. Herman Zandi (1977) LRT n. 23.
8.5
Power to recall witnesses O.XVIII, r.12
8.6
Taking evidence of witnesses about to leave court jurisdiction
O.XVIII, r.13
8.7
Visiting locus in quo, what principles to follow?
8.8
Interlocutory proceedings
8.8.1 Meaning of
27
Where applicable
a) Security for costs – O.XXV
Wambura Chacha (1973) L.R.T. n. 4
Ujagar singh (1968) H.C.D. n. 173.
Iddi Athuman Civil App. No. 31/79 (H.c.) (DSM).
Kiska Ltd (1969) E.A. 6
Rasiklal H. Patel v. Pharmavet (T) Ltd, Commercial Case
No. 181/01(HC) DSM, (unreported).
Hatimali Adamji (1973) L.R.T. n.6
Quick Services Stores (1958) E.a. 358.
Remy & Co. Ltd v. Seifi Industrial Complex Ltd.,
commercial Case No. 33 of 2000, HC at DSM
(unreported)
D.M.T. Corp. Ltd (1971) H.C.D. n. 19.
Karam (1929 – 30) 12 K.L.R. 49.
b) Arrest and attachment before judgment – O.XXXVI.
Read: Omar Malima v. T. O. L. Ltd, Civ. Case No. 190 of
1999, (HC), DSM (unreported).
c) Temporary injunctions O.XXXVII.
Alloys Authority Duwe (1979) L.r.T n. 26p.
Attilio v. Mbowe (1971) H.C.D. n. 249.
Jani Mohamed (1953) 20 E.A. C. A. 8
Hans Wolfgang v. General Manager of Morogoro Canvas
Mill Ltd [1987] TLR 78
Thompson (1944) 2 All E.R. 477.
Tahfif Mini Super Market v. b.P. Tanzania Ltd [1992] TLR
189.
d) Interlocutory Order O.37
Mtale v. Kapembwa (1976) L.R.T. n. 7.
Rafael Dibogo v. Wambura (1975) L.R.T. n. 42
Henry Lyimo v. Eliabu E. Matee [1991] TLR 93
28
Sale of perishables.
Deposit in court of money or non perishables.
e) Appointment of receivers
8.8.2
Mode of initiating interlocutory proceedings – O.XXLIII, r.2 is
by:1) (a) Chamber Summons,
(b) Affidavit
2) Orally under O.XLIII
Read:• Gulamhusssein Fazal v. Gulamali (No. 2)(1976)
LRT 64.
• T. A. Kaare v. General Manager Mara Cooperative
Union (1984) Ltd [1987] TLR 17.
8.9
Abatement of suits O.XXII
8.9.1 By death – O.XXII, rr.1-6.
Action in rem
Action in personam
8.9.2 By insolvency – O.XXII, r.8
Bankruptcy ordinance.
8.9.3 Consequences of abatement O.xxII, r.9
PART NINE
9.0
JUDGEMENTS AND DECREE – O.XX
9.1
Judgement:
Meaning of S.3 CPC
Types of Judgments – in rem
-
in personam
Why pronounce a judgment
Content of a judgment
At what stage should a judgment be pronounced.
29
Effect of pronouncing judgement
Read: - Kashanga v. Ernest Kahoya (1976) LRT n. 10
Tanganyika Haulage Ltd v. CORETCO LTD. (1974) LRT n. 45.
Halbury’s Laws of England vol. 22 (3rd) 740.
Mansion House Ltd (1954) 21 E.A.C.A. 98, 102
Stanslaus Rugaba Kasusurei & A-G v. Phares Kabuye (1982)
TLR 338.
9.2
Rashid Nkiingu v. Ally Mohamed [1984] TLR 46
Papari v. Shah (1961) E.A. 676.
Salum Sururu v. Zahor Abdulla [1988] TLR 41
Decree
Meaning of
Basis for a decree
Who is to extract a decree
Effects of a decree
Failure to extract a decree
Read: Manson House Ltd v. Wilkinson (1954) EACA 98.
9.3
Sheikha v. Halima (1959) E.A. 500.
Distinction between Judgement, Rulling, Decree and Order.
Read Manson House’s and Sheikhai’s above.
9.4
Execution of Decrees ss. 31-55 and O.XX!
Read : Madole Mbichi v. Makongoro Nyamwaji (1968) HCD n. 28.
Nyanza Distributors Co. Ltd v. Geita General Stores (1977) LRT
n. 7.
Omoke Oloov. Werema Magira [1983] TLR 144.
9.4.1 Modes of executing a decree where less Punitive Measures have
failed.
(a)
Attachment of property U/O.XXI, rr 11-12 which may also
lead to sale u/s 52 and OXXI, r. 6.
(b)
Arrest and detention in civil prisons U/O XXI r.35.
(c)
Appointing a receiver – S. 42 (d) CPC
30
(d)
Declaring the judgement debtor bankrupt under laws relating
to bankruptcy proceding s.42(e) CPC.
Read: • NIC & Another v. Sekulu Construction Company [1986]
TLR 157
Chikumbi Chilomo v. Madaha Mganga [1986] TLR 247
Kangaulu Mussa v. Mpunghati Mchodo [1984] TLR 348.
PART TEN
10.
REMEDIES WHERE A PARTY IS DISSATISFIED
BY COURT DECISIONS
10.1
Appeals.
Art 13 Constitution
Maruthi v. Gomuo (1981) T.L.R. 143.
Sikh Saw Mills (1972) H.C.D. n 72.
Sells (1968) E.A. 123, 126.
Seif v. Sholan (1955) 22 E.A.C.A. 270.
Benmax (1955) 1 All ER 32.
NBC v. Sadrudin Meghji, Civil Application No. 20 of 1997 (CAT)
at DSM, (unreported.
Ibrahim Ahmed (1968) H.C.D. n. 76.
Peters Sunday Post Ltd (1958) E.A. 424.
Mbogo v. Shah (1968) E.A. 93.
Channan Sigh 22 E.A.C.A 125, 135.
Davies v. Powell (1942) 1 All ER 657.
Simon Kabaka Daniel v. Mwita Marwa Nyang’anyie ors
[1989]TLR.
Walt v. Thomas (1947) AC 484; (1947) 1 All ER 82.
Omari Yusuf v. Mwajuma Yusuf & Another [1983] TLR 29.
31
Ladd (1954) IW. LR 1489, 1491.
Calico Textile Industries Ltd v. Pyarali Esmail Premji [1983] TLR
28
Hussein Omari Mwasha v. Zeenat Abdukarim civ. App. No.
19/88 (HC) (DSM).
10.2
Mrs. Kermal v. The Registrar of Buildings & Another [1988] TLR.
Review
James Mapalala v. BBC, Civ. Appeal No. 43 of 2001 (CAT),
Dodoma (unreported).
Abasi Balinda (1963) E.A. 557.
NBC v. Cosmas Mukoji [1986] TLR 127.
Dr. Aman Kabourou v. Azim S. Premji & A-G, Civil Application
No. 70 of 1990, (CAT) at DSM (unreported).
10.3
Revision
Fahari Bothers & Another v. The Registrar of Co’s & Another,
Civ. Revision No. 1 of 1999 (CAT) (unreported)
Mosha Textile mills (1975) L.R.T. n. 17.
Kulwa Daudi v. Rebeca Stephen [1985] TLR. 116.
Matemba v. Yamulinga (1968) E.A. 643.
Abdu Hassan v. Mohamed Ahmed [1989] TLR 181
NB
Advantages / disadvantages of the above modes should
adequately be explored.
10.4
Stay of execution O.XXXIX, rr 5-8 and O.XXI, rr 24-27.
Albert Braganza and Another v. Mrs. Flora Lourdin Braganza
[1992] TLR 307.
Transport Equipment Ltd. V. D. P. Valambhia [1992] TLR 182.
Tanganyika Motors Ltd. & 4 others v. Bahadurali Ebrahim
Shamji Civil Application No. 65 of 2001 (CAT) at DSM,
(unreported).
32
PART ELEVEN
11.0
MISCELLANEOUS
11.1
Special Case / Case stated 0.XXXIV i.e. a case initiated by the
parties to a court of first instance where such parties differ on
certain aspects but are agreed to the outcome of the case.
11.2
Reference or consultation : 0.XLI
This is normally done by the trial or executing court where a
case is stated to the High court for its opinion where such court
entertain a doubt in the process of hearing the case or
executing the decree. Parties do not have any right to state
case to the High court but may apply to and request the trial or
executing court to state such case to the High Court:
Read: Allison Xerox Sila v. THA, Civil Reference No. 14 of 1998
(CAT) at DSM (unreported).
11.3
Inherent Powers s.95 CPC
Connelly v. The DPP (1964) 46 Cr. App. R 183, 206.
Hassan Karim (1960) E.A. 396, 399.
Rawal (1968) E.A. 392.
Mulji (1960) E.A. 217.
Adonia (1970) E.A. 429.
Ryan Investments (1970) E.A. 675.
Allen (1968) 2 QB 229.
Jaffer Ladack (1973) L.R.T. n. 71
B.P. Chatwani Misc. App. No. 37 / 78 (HC) (AR)
By KIHWELO /CIV/03
33