Nyalali, C.J. read the following order of the court: When this appeal came on for F hearing on 2/11/1983 Mr. Lakha, learned Advocate for the Respondent raised an objection to the effect that the appeal was incompetent as the record of appeal did not contain a decree as required under Rule 89 (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979. As no notice of this preliminary objection had been given as required under Rule G 100, we granted an adjournment to enable Mr. El. Maamry, Learned Advocate for the appellant to prepare himself to answer the objection.
When the adjourned hearing came on for continuation today, Mr. El-Maamry had filed a H Notice of Motion seeking extension of time to file a supplementary record of appeal. He however conceded that the Notice of Motion is not an answer to the objection raised by Mr. Lakha regarding the competency of the appeal now before this Court. Furthermore, he concedes that unless this Court holds that the absence of the decree in the record of appeal is immaterial, the I
Court is bound to strike out the appeal leaving the appellant with the option to make A subsequent appropriate applications seeking to bring back to this court a proper appeal in the case.
Mr. Lakha in final submission asks this court to strike out the appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion.
Having considered the submissions made on both sides, and the authorities cited, B including the case of Commissioner of Transport v A.G. of Uganda & Another [1959] E.A. 329 and Haining & others [1971 E.A. 421, we are satisfied that this appeal is incompetent and is hereby struck out and we further direct that the Notice of Motion now before us be dismissed with costs.
C Order accordingly.
D
