FOUR companies have asked the Court of Appeal to review its decision over High Court Judge Amir Mruma impartiality to determine another dispute involving sale of 34,479 shares valued at 13bn/-.
In its decision, the appellate court
rejected an application for revision lodged by Mic Tanzania Limited,
trading as Tigo, and other applicants, Millcom (Tanzania) N.V. Millcom
International Cellular S.A and Shai Holdings S.A. to challenge the
refusal by Judge Mruma to hear the dispute.
The court had ruled in favour of Golden
Globe International Services Limited after upholding a ground of
objection that the decision by Justice Mruma to refuse disqualifying
himself from determining the dispute was interlocutory, as could not
dispose the main case,now pending before the High Court.
However, in the hearing session before
Justices Mussa Kipenka, Stella Mugasha and Rehema Mkuye last Friday,
advocates for the applicants maintained that the holding by the court
was an error, apparently on face of record, occasioning miscarriage of
justice to their clients.
In their joint submissions, Advocates
Wilbard Kapinga, Mbwambo and Gaudiousis Ishengoma told the panel that
the decision by the High Court on refusal by the judge to recuse was
final and conclusive and such ruling had nothing to do with subsequent
process of hearing the pending petition on merits.
They submitted that the holding of the
appellate court in endorsing the decision of the High Court judge was
prejudicial upon their clients because they would be forced to appear
before him while doubting his impartiality after having lost confidence
on him.
“The court, therefore, made an error
when treated the High Court decision as interlocutory and, therefore,
not subject for revision. We invite this court to review its decision in
order to correct this error,” the leading Counsel, Dr Kapinga,
forcefully submitted.
In their response, however, Advocates
for Golden Globe International Services Limited, the respondent in the
matter, vehemently resisted to the submissions by counsel for the
applicants and requested the court to find the application lacking
merits and dismiss the same with costs.
Advocates Joseph Ndazi and Seni Malimi,
told the panel that the decision of the appellate court, the subject for
review, was a correct decision and the court rightly found that the
ruling by the High Court judge to refuse from disqualifying himself from
conducting the dispute was indeed interlocutory.
Such decision, they maintained, was not capable of finally determining the main case currently pending before the High Court.
Therefore, the advocates submitted, the
Court of Appeal never erred in its decision. “We request this Court not
to disturb its earlier decision,” Advocate Ndazi submitted. After
hearing the submissions from both parties, the justices said they would
give their ruling on the matter at a date to be announced later.
Before the High Court’s Commercial
Division, the respondent instituted a petition against the applicants,
seeking, among others, that the company should be allowed to run affairs
of Tigo Company on claims of being the majority shareholders.
The petition was assigned to Judge
Mruma. But before commencement of the hearing, a Principal Officer with
Tigo Company, Mr Tumaini Sekwa, posted an affidavit on behalf of all
other applicants, expressing that they have lost confidence on the judge
to hear the matter and should recuse himself.
In response, the presiding judge invited
counsel from either side to address him on the complaint and, having
heard them, he delivered a lengthy ruling through which he declined the
invitation to disqualify himself from the conduct of the matter.
The applicants decided to move to the Court of Appeal.
No comments :
Post a Comment