The Court of Appeal of Tanzania sitting in Dar es Salaam, has struck out on a legal technicality, the preliminary objection raised on a point of law in a civil appeal lodged by appellant Dr.Maua Abeid Daftari versus respondent Fatuma Salimini Saidi.

The ruling, which was hitherto reserved by the Court, and one which broke the protracted silence that reigned for quite sometime, has peacefully put the controversial objection to final and conclusive rest.

The ruling, entered by a panel comprising Justices Harold Nsekela, the chairman of the panel, Nathalia Kimaro and Mohamed Chande Othman, was read in chambers yesterday by Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal, John Mugeta.

According to Court records, the appellant who is the Deputy Minister for Communications, Science and Technology, had filed Civil Appeal No.88 of 2008, challenging the original decree and order in Civil Case No.21 of 1999 of the High Court entered in Dar es Salaam. However, a preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel for the respondent, Dominic Kashumbugu. On February 18 this year the parties who were both represented by lawyers appeared in Court for the hearing of the objection in question and having heard the parties, the Court fixed the matter for a ruling which was to be delivered on a date to be notified to the parties.

But on or about Thursday 25th June this year the parties were served with a notice of further hearing of the preliminary objection which was slated for Monday 6th of July 2009 at 9:00 am.

Pursuant to further hearing of the matter, the parties were ordered by the Court to address, on the hearing date, several pressing issues which ranged from whether or not the judgement of the Court being appealed against is dated the 14th November, 2007, whether or not the judgement was pronounced and dated the date on which it was delivered in open court. The Court also required the parties to tackle the question whether or not the judicial officer who pronounced and dated the judgement was competent under 0rder XX rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap.33 R.E.2002 or any other written law to act as he did and, further, to whether or not the consequences arising out of the acts of the learned Judge and judicial officer are fatal or minor and curable under the law.

During the proceedings, the Counsel for the respondent had faulted the appeal record for not containing any judgement whatsoever within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). He had argued that Order XX rule 3 of the CPC was violated and that the judgement was not dated by the Judge who prepared it, which contention was resisted by Advocate Swai, the appellant's lawyer. For his part Swai had contended that the appeal before the court was proper.