THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT ARUSHA
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APLLICATION NO. 126/92CHRISTOPHER AIKAWO SHAYO=======================APPLICANT
VERSUS
- NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES }
- PESTICIDES MANUFACTURERS LTD. ===============RESPONDENTS
RULING.
BEFORE: M.D. NCHALLA, J.
This ruling is being made following an objection by counsel for the respondents to an application,
for adjournment of the hearing of this application that was made to the court by counsel for the
applicants.
The application, had been fixed for hearing on the 24 th day of July 1992 and the same was clearly
so, cause list and both parties appear to have been aware of the said hearing as they have both of
them dutifully attended the court and quite punctually. I have used the words “the parties appear
to have been served” because the record is some how confusing. The record shows that the
application first came before the District Registrar on 4/6/1992, after the same was filed on
25/5/1992. On 4/6/1992 both parties were absent, and the application was fixed for hearing on
24/7/1992, with a direction that notices be served on the parties. Notices for service on the parties
were issued on the same day, that is, on 4/6/1992 for service on the parties. However only one
notice of hearing appears to have been served on one of the counsel for the applicants, the Law
Partners and Associates, Advocates who duly signed the notice whose original was returned to
the court and is in the file. With regard to the other parties there is no proof in the record that they
were served.
Then on 24/6/1992 the application was called before the Acting District Registrar Mr. S.J.,
Lawena. On this date the parties were both absent, an order was made that the application be
heard oil 2/7/1992 instead of the 24 th July 1992 which was fixed initially. The reason for this
change of the date of hearing is contained in the order thus: “Hearing on 2/7/1992 as directed by
the Hon. Justice. Parties be notified.
Signed,
S.J. Lawena, Ag. D.R
24/6/1992.
The record does not show that notices were issued on the parties in respect of the" hearing" of
notices the application on 2/7/1992. There are no copies of notices of hearing for 2/7/1992 in the
file.
Indeed, the applications, were before the Acting District Registrar on 2/7/1992 as was scheduled.
On this day one of the respondents’ counsel, the Tanzania Legal Corporation appeared. Mr. Maro
from TLC appeared for the respondents, while the applicants were absent and were not
represented. It is not known how and by what means the TLC became aware that the application
had been rescheduled for hearing on the 2/7/1992 instead of the 24/7/1992 which was initially