The appellant, GAPOIL (TANZANIA) Ltd. instituted the present appeal to challenge the Ruling passed on 16th November, 1999 in Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 36 of 1999 in the High Court of Tanzania at Dar-es-Salaam, before Manento, J., as
he then was. The application for certiorari sought to quash a tax assessment by the first respondent, the Tanzania Revenue Authority,
and to prohibit the first and the second respondents from demanding overdue/unpaid taxes totaling the sum of Tsh 189,833,220/32,
the appellant allegedly owed the first respondent. The learned trial Judge upheld a preliminary objection to the effect that there
are alternative remedies to resolve the tax matter before resorting to the prerogative actions of certiorari and prohibition. Dissatisfied
with the Ruling of the High Court, the appellant lodged the present appeal.
The 1st respondent filed a Notice of preliminary objection under Rule 100 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 contending that the
Ruling appealed against does not reflect the correct title of the appellant. The gist of the preliminary objection is that at pages
227 and 238 of the record of appeal, the appellant was erroneously titled “appellant” instead of “applicant”.
However, counsel for the 1st respondent conceded that the said misdescription of the applicant only appears on the titles of the Ruling and Drawn Order of the
High Court. The text of the Ruling and Drawn Order correctly described the parties as applicant and respondents. On the mistitling
of the parties, counsel for the first respondent asserted that if the record with the erroneous descriptions of the parties is not
rectified, and, or the preliminary objection is overruled, the present appeal would be rendered incompetent for want of leave to
appeal to this Court. Hence his prayer that the preliminary objection be sustained and the appeal be struck out with costs.
Counsel for the first respondent cited the case of Tanzania Telecommunications and 4 Others versus TRI Telecommunication Tanzania Ltd. Civil Application No. 61 of 2003 (unreported) in which a single Judge struck off a Notice of Appeal under Rule 82 of the Tanzania
Court of Appeal Rules, 1979 on the ground that the relevant Notice of Appeal did not comply with the provisions of Rule 76 of the
Court of Appeal Rules, 1979. He further cited the case of Kishimba (T) Traders Ltd. and Jumanne Kishimba versus Tanzania Revenue Authority, Civil Application No. 47 of 2003 (unreported) wherein the respondent sought to strike out a Notice of Appeal because neither the
copy of the Notice of Appeal nor the copy of the Decree appealed against were included in the record of appeal thence rendering the
said appeal incompetent.
It is our considered view that the above cited cases are distinguishable from the
present case wherein the Notice of Appeal and the Decree appealed against reflect no irregularities.
Dr. Kapinga, learned counsel for the applicant, conceded that there was an error
in misdescribing the appellant at Page 227 and 238 of the record of appeal, which he said, was inadvertent and possibly a typing
error in view of the fact that there is no misdescription of the parties in the text of the Ruling and Drawn Order appealed from.
Counsel for the appellant therefore sought leave to rectify the misdescription of the parties in the titles of the Ruling and Drawn
Order of the High Court at Pages 227 and 238 of the record of appeal.
With regard to the prayer for leave to rectify the record under the Slip Rule, Dr.
Kapinga cited the case of Jewels and Antinques (T) Ltd. versus National Shipping Agencies Co. Ltd. (1994) TLR 107 in which the Court held:
As per Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966, clerical and arithmetical mistakes may be corrected at any time, applications
to correct the same therefore, are not subject to any limitation of time.
Counsel for the appellant also referred us to the case of Vallabhidas Karsandas Raniga versus Mansukhlal Jivraji and Others (1965) E.A. 700. In that case, the then Court of Appeal of Eastern Africa considered the applicability of the Slip Rule and held:
‘Slip Orders’ may be made to rectify omissions resulting from the failure of counsel to make some particular application ---.
We are, in the light of the above, satisfied that the misdescription of the parties
in the Ruling and Drawn Order of the High Court at Pages 227 and 238 of the record of appeal was a typing error because the particular
errors are not reflected in the text of the Ruling and Drawn Order. We are also satisfied that the said misdescription of the parties
is a minor and curable defect under the Slip Rule. Under the circumstances, we overrule the preliminary objection and grant the appellant
leave to rectify the record of appeal within fourteen days after obtaining a correct copy of the Ruling and Drawn Order from the
High Court.
Costs of the application to abide the result of appeal.
DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 15th day of August, 2005.
.RTF of original document