The applicant filed this application on 21st
November, 2007 under rule 40 (1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979
(the Old Rules). He is moving the Court to review its Judgment which was
delivered 19 years earlier on 24th December, 1988. The background
facts to this application traces back to 1982 when the applicant instituted a
suit, Civil Case No. 36 of 1982 in the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. His
suit staked a claim over business premises situated along Azimio Street in
Arusha. The applicant claimed that he bought the premises from the 1st
Respondent and the 2nd Respondent. The applicant won the suit in the
High Court.
The two Respondents were aggrieved with the judgment of the
trial court and lodged an appeal, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1988, to this Court.
In its judgment subject of instant motion dated 24 December 1988, the Court
allowed the appeal when it found out that the judgment of the High Court was
wholly based on an agreement which was inoperative at law. The Court in
addition ordered the 1st Respondent to refund to the Applicant the
purchase price plus the money that was spent on the property, which amounted to
Tshs. 232,240.00.
In 1993, which was five years after the decision subject of
instant motion, the applicant returned back to this Court with an application
before a Single Justice in Civil Application No. 35 of 1993. He prayed for an
extension of time to move the Court to effect a correction of what the
applicant described as errors in that decision. The requested extension was
denied.
Still aggrieved, the applicant lodged Civil Reference No. 1
of 1994 wherein he asked three Justices of the Court to determine whether
Kisanga, J.A., was right to dismiss his application for extension of time.
While finding no reason to differ from the decision of Kisanga, J.A., the three
Justices determined that rule 40 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 governing
correction of errors, was not helpful to the applicant because it would not
lead to the overturn of the judgment of the decision of the Court subject of
this motion.
Almost three months later on 24 March, 1995, the Court made
its decision in Civil Application No. 15 of 1993 which the applicant filed
under rule 40 of the Old Rules. He unsuccessfully prayed for the correction of
errors in the judgment of the Court in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1988. When this
application came up for hearing before us on 15 May 2017, only the applicant
was present. The 1st Respondent was reported deceased, while the 2nd
Respondent was indisposed.
Before we could hear the applicant on his motion seeking a
review, we suo motu raised a preliminary issue of law, whether, when the
applicant filed this motion on 21st November, 2007, his application
was within the prescribed limitation period for a review.