The Applicant was awarded Tshs. 114,000/= against the
Respondent on 3rd September, 1988. On appeal to the Court of Appeal
it was ordered that the Applicant should be paid compensation for a house which
the Respondent obtained under a void agreement but remitted the case to the
High Court to assess the quantum of the compensation because of escalating
devaluation of the shilling. It directed the High Court to assess the value of
the house and pay the Applicant less mesne profits to which the
Respondent would be entitled. After assessing the compensation, the High Court
ruled that the Applicant would be entitled to Tshs. 11,686,199.25 as
compensation. The Respondent appealed against the assessment. On 13th
December, 1996, the Court of Appeal affirmed the amount assessed by the High
Court and dismissed the appeal but erroneously stated that the High Court had
assessed the sum of Tshs. 1,686,199.25 as compensation less than the amount
assessed by the High Court. About nine and a half years after the Court of
Appeal decision with the incorrect figure of the amount of compensation due the
Applicant filed an application by Notice of Motion to the Court of Appeal
seeking correction of a clerical error in the Judgment of the Court dated 13th
December 1996 so that the amount of compensation due to him would read
Tshs. 11,686,199.25 instead of Tshs. 1,686,199.25 as appears in the Judgment.
The Respondent objected to the application for the reasons that the Notice of
Motion was defective as it offended the mandatory provisions of section 44 (1)
and 44(2) of the Advocates Act [Cap 341 R.E. 2002] and that the application was
hopelessly time barred.