By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

What transpired at the high court is very material for the determination of thisappeal so we might as well delve into that at this jointure.The application was called for mention on 5/7/1989 when the3 appellant then therespondent was absent while the present respondent then the applicant wasrepresented by Mr. Matata learned Counsel On the day of the hearing that is11/7/1989 the appellant was reprinted by one Mr. Bwiro who mere likely than notwas then the Assistant Imports Controller Mr. Matata made a submission towhich Mr. Bwire replied despite his confession that he was not a lawyer He wasnot sworn and in his submission he referred to a number of documents whichdefinitely were not tendered as exhibits nor is it clear that the court had even aglance at them.Before us the respondent continued being represented by Mr. Matata wile theappellant was advocated for by Mr. Marando learned CounselThis Mr. Marando made an informal application under Rules 3 (2) and 45 (3) (a)of the Tanzania court of “Appeal Rules 1979 supported by the affidavit and thedocuments that were attached therewithwhich we have already alluded toabove be admitted by this court as part and parcel of the of appeal He contendedthat these do not qualify as additional evidence since the contents had alreadybeen present before the High court bence his non-reliance on Rule 34 whichdeals with Power to re-appraise evidence and to take additional evidence Goever after suggestion from the bench he came round to acknowledge that Rule34 is the relevant one But then the question came the affidavit and thedocuments are to be admitted as additional to what pre-existing evidence310