Nyalali, C.J., Makame and Omar, JJ.A.: When this appeal came up for hearing this morning, Mr. Maira, H learned advocate for the respondent applied for adjournment of the hearing on the grounds stated in the affidavit filed on 1st November, 1988. These grounds are substantially to the effect that there is an application by the respondent pending in the High Court in which the respondent seeks two things. Firstly, he is applying for extension I of time to apply to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court; and secondly he is applying to be allowed by The High Court to appeal to this Court against the Order of the High Court Maina, J. which granted the
NYALALI CJ, MAKAME JJA AND OMAR JJA
present appellant an extension of time to give notice of appeal against the judgment of the High Court Mapigano, J. A given on 24th November, 1987 and the Bill of Costs taxed by the High Court in subsequent execution proceedings. Mr. Kesaria learned advocate for the appellant has vigorously opposed this application for adjournment. Our own examination of the original record of the High Court confirms the fact there is indeed such as application by the respondent pending in the High Court. Undoubtedly, if the application is granted by the High B Court and if the respondent successfully appeals to the Court against the Order of Maina, J. which enables the current appeal to come before this Court as Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1988, the consequence would be to render this C current appeal incompetence.
However, Mr. Kessaria has submitted to the effect that the intended appeal by the respondent, which is the subject of the application pending in the High Court is already time-barred by the provisions of Rule 83 of the Tanzania D Court of Appeal Rules, 1979. We find this submission pertinent, but we are of the considered opinion that the proper place and time for making this submission is in the course of the hearing of the application pending in the High Court. It will be open and appropriate for the High court to reject the application on the ground that the intended E appeal, is inter alia, already time-barred under the provisions fo Rule 83. If that happens, the current appeal before us will proceed to be heard and decided as expected. But if the application is granted, the current appeal will have to await a decision by this Court on the intended appeal since it concerns the competency of the current appeal. F
In the final analysis therefore, since the Court as a matter of judicial policy and practice will not adjourn the hearing of an appeal except under special circumstances, and since the intended appeal amounts to such special G circumstance, we hereby grant the application for adjournment with the following directions.
1. This appeal be fixed for hearing by the Registrar as soon as possible after the High Court has given decision on the pending application; and H
2. The High Court to proceed to hear and decide the pending application, as soon as its diary of court business permits.
3. Costs to follow the event.
Order accordingly. I
© 2015 Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd.
