editor
The Court of Appeal has declined to reconsider its ruling that mandates Hood Transport Company Limited to compensate the East African Development Bank with 776,282.98 US dollars (approximately 2bn/-) for violating a lease agreement involving seven Scania Marcopolo Torino buses.
Justices Barke Sehel, Panterine Kente, and Benhajj Masoud determined that Hood Transport Limited did not reveal any errors in the application for review, as required under Rule 66 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
“In this case, it is evident that this application is baseless, and therefore, we dismiss it with costs,” they stated in their decision dated February 19, 2024, issued in Dar es Salaam.
During the review application hearing, the applicant’s counsel sought a reconsideration of the Court’s judgment, claiming it was based on a significant error in the record that led to a miscarriage of justice.
The applicant argued that the Court neglected to address an appeal ground that criticized the trial court for excluding certain portions of the client’s witness statement. Additionally, they contended that the Court erred in not acknowledging that the trial judge rejected documentary exhibits before they were presented as evidence.
The justices underscored that the Court’s review jurisdiction should not be misused as a disguised appeal by dissatisfied parties. They stressed that merely alleging a manifest error in the appellate court’s decision is insufficient under Rule 66 (1)(a) of the Rules unless the errors are detailed to reveal grounds for appeal.
They acknowledged that during the appeal hearing, the applicant raised five grounds of appeal, one of which challenged the trial judge for omitting parts of the applicant’s witness statement. Upon reviewing the decision being contested for review, they found that the issue concerning the interpretation of Rule 53 of the Commercial Court Rules had been thoroughly addressed in their judgment.
