The Respondent instituted a suit in the High Court against the Appellant, a manufacturer of “Tembo” cement whose factory was situated at Songwe industrial area in Mbeya District. The suit sought declaratory orders and injunctive reliefs pertaining to service levy, and basically contending that the Respondent should be declared the sole beneficiary of the levy because the cement products originates from the factory situated in the jurisdiction of the District Council and not to other district Councils where the products are sold. Appellant denied the Respondent’s claim. The aggrieved Appellant preferred four grounds of appeal to the Court. One ground faulted the trial court for proceeding to determine the issues framed on the basis of written submissions without calling evidence for and against the parties to the suit.
The Appellant stated that the suit was preferred under the CPC. The suit was supposed to be heard in the manner provided under O. XVIII of the CPC requiring hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses and after the hearing of the suit, a judgment follows in terms of O.XX rule 1 of the CPC. This procedure was not followed by the trial judge who resorted to hearing by written submissions. The Respondent while praying for the dismissal of this appeal, submitted that the trial court did not have to call witnesses because the issues before it were about the interpretation of the statute which did not require evidence.