Jaji anatakiwa atoe hukumu kufuatana na sheria na ushahidi uliotolewa mahakamani uliojitosheleza na sio vinginevyo!!Mpaka sasa bastola siyo big deal kwenye kesi hii kama Jaji ana nia ya kutenda haki. Huwezi Fanya Ugaidi wa kuua watu wengi kwa kutumia risasi 3 tu. Ili Ugaidi upate tafsiri halisi lazima kuwe na mambo matatu yametendeka au yanaelekea kutendeka;
1.Vitisho
2.Matishio
3.Mauaji ya watu wengi.
Katika ushahidi uliotolewa mpaka sasa wapi umeona hao wanaoitwa magaidi walitoa vitisho? Maana maswali ya msingi yanapoulizwa na Mawakili wa Utetezi kama mhanga (Sabaya) alijua yuko hatarini wanasema alikuwa hajui.
Katika ushahidi uliotolewa mpaka sasa zaidi ya story za ulipuaji visima vya mafuta na ukataji miti barabarani hakuna mahali panaonesha kuna watu walitishika na vitendo vya watuhumiwa (matishio).
Katika ushahidi uliotolewa mpaka sasa kitendea kazi pekee kilichoonekana kingeweza kutekeleza mauaji ya watu wengi ni pistol na risasi 3 huku waliopangwa kuuawa wakiwa viongozi wa serikali ambao wengi wanalindwa tena kwa silaha nzito.
NB: Kuwa Jaji ni kuchukua nafasi mojawapo kati ya kazi za Mungu yaani kuhukumu. Na ili umwakilishe Mungu vizuri lazima utoe hukumu ya haki. CJ TIGANGA atasimama na Mungu au atasimama na Wanadamu? Tusubiri tuone.
Retired.. Najalibu kuwaza kama wewe anyway ngoja tusubili majibu, si unajua waswahili wana msemo wao wanasema usiku wa deni haukawii kuchamali haitakubalika na mahakama kama sehemu ya ushahidi... hiyo bastola haitakuwa sehemu ya ushahidi/ushahidi wake utatupwa kuhusu ile bastola kuwa walikutwa nayo. (maoni yangu, I stand to be corrected)
Chukulia mfano wamejitoa yanayoendelea kutokea kila siku mahakamani tungeliyafahamu ?No kama hakuna haki kuna maagizo tupu yanini wasumbuke? bora Mbowe wamfunge roho zao zitakate
Alienda kwanza kumconsult Jaji Siyani.
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 to invoke 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
LABDA ASEME KUWA THIS IS APPLICABLE TO APPLICATIONS/CHAMBER SUMMONS ONLY, LET US WAIT AND SEE
The issue raised in the objection is wrong citation while the prosecution argue that it is an incomplete citation. is wrong implicitly the same as incomplete?
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 to invoke 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
LABDA ASEME KUWA THIS IS APPLICABLE TO APPLICATIONS/CHAMBER SUMMONS ONLY, LET US WAIT AND SEE
Hata Mimi namuona akiwa kati ya mtanziko. Roho i radhi lakini mwili ni dhaifu.Sidhani kama ataweza pindua meza kiasi kwamba apingane na uamzi wake wa shauri LA awali ambalo issue ni kama hii ambayo IPO mbele yake tena.
Uzuri Mh Mbowe yuko tayari kwa lolote.No kama hakuna haki kuna maagizo tupu yanini wasumbuke? bora Mbowe wamfunge roho zao zitakate
At least today you have argued as a wise person.The issue raised in the objection is wrong citation while the prosecution argue that it is an incomplete citation. is wrong implicitly the same as incomplete?
@erythrocyte aione Kibatala et alMpaka sasa bastola siyo big deal kwenye kesi hii kama Jaji ana nia ya kutenda haki. Huwezi Fanya Ugaidi wa kuua watu wengi kwa kutumia risasi 3 tu. Ili Ugaidi upate tafsiri halisi lazima kuwe na mambo matatu yametendeka au yanaelekea kutendeka;
1.Vitisho
2.Matishio
3.Mauaji ya watu wengi.
Katika ushahidi uliotolewa mpaka sasa wapi umeona hao wanaoitwa magaidi walitoa vitisho? Maana maswali ya msingi yanapoulizwa na Mawakili wa Utetezi kama mhanga (Sabaya) alijua yuko hatarini wanasema alikuwa hajui.
Katika ushahidi uliotolewa mpaka sasa zaidi ya story za ulipuaji visima vya mafuta na ukataji miti barabarani hakuna mahali panaonesha kuna watu walitishika na vitendo vya watuhumiwa (matishio).
Katika ushahidi uliotolewa mpaka sasa kitendea kazi pekee kilichoonekana kingeweza kutekeleza mauaji ya watu wengi ni pistol na risasi 3 huku waliopangwa kuuawa wakiwa viongozi wa serikali ambao wengi wanalindwa tena kwa silaha nzito.
NB: Kuwa Jaji ni kuchukua nafasi mojawapo kati ya kazi za Mungu yaani kuhukumu. Na ili umwakilishe Mungu vizuri lazima utoe hukumu ya haki. CJ TIGANGA atasimama na Mungu au atasimama na Wanadamu? Tusubiri tuone.
Nadhani wangejitoa awali kama ilivyo shauriwa na kina Lema hata haya ya leo tusinge yajua.No kama hakuna haki kuna maagizo tupu yanini wasumbuke? bora Mbowe wamfunge roho zao zitakate
Safi sana nakubaliana na wewe;@erythrocyte aione Kibatala et al
I think you are over zooming making it impossible to see important small issue.At least today you have argued as a wise person.
How can it be an incomplete citation with a wrong year of inauguration?
Shetani Hana aibu, ngoja tuoneSidhani kama ataweza pindua meza kiasi kwamba apingane na uamzi wake wa shauri LA awali ambalo issue ni kama hii ambayo IPO mbele yake tena.
Ngoja tuone, lkn wasivyo na aibu, ngoja tusubiriRetired.. Najalibu kuwaza kama wewe anyway ngoja tusubili majibu, si unajua waswahili wana msemo wao wanasema usiku wa deni haukawii kucha
You have a point!The issue raised in the objection is wrong citation while the prosecution argue that it is an incomplete citation. is wrong implicitly the same as incomplete?
Having noted that let me touch the basic matter- admission of evidence.
Inadmissible Evidence
Evidence that can not be presented to the jury or decision maker for any of a variety of reasons:
- it was improperly obtained,
- it is prejudicial (the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value),
- it is hearsay, it is not relevant to the case, etc.
Wrong citation which included incomplete citationThe issue raised in the objection is wrong citation while the prosecution argue that it is an incomplete citation. is wrong implicitly the same as incomplete?
Having noted that let me touch the basic matter- admission of evidence.
Inadmissible Evidence
Evidence that can not be presented to the jury or decision maker for any of a variety of reasons:
- it was improperly obtained,
- it is prejudicial (the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value),
- it is hearsay, it is not relevant to the case, etc.
Hiyo nami inanipa faraja. Anajua what might or is likely tobefall on himUzuri Mh Mbowe yuko tayari kwa lolote.