Simon Kichele Chacha vs Aveline M Kilawe, Civil Application No 135/8 of 2021.

We are called upon to determine whether there is an apparent error on the face of the record in the judgment of the Court in Civil Appeal No.  160 of 2018 which involved parties herein. Simon Kichele Chacha, hereinafter to be referred to as the applicant or Chacha, is aggrieved by that decision delivered on the 26th day of February, 2021 hence this  application for review.

The application was brought by notice of motion made under section 4 (4) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap 141 R.E 2019 (the AJA) and rule 66 (1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules)

Court had this to say:

The applicant further believes that, the District Court and the first appellate court did not have concurrent findings on the alleged facts and therefore, faults the reasoning of this Court in refraining to address the issue in details. In our view, this assertion is analogous to asking the Court to sit on appeal of its own decision and reverse it. We are also of the opinion that, when a party believes that the Court should have reached a different conclusion or the decision was erroneous in substance, such are matters fit for appeal rather than review whose realm is limited.

In the Kenyan case of Republic V. Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal & Exparte Apollo Mboya, Misc. Application No. 317 of 2018 

[unreported] it was held that, the process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record justifying an exercise of the power of review. We subscribe to this legal stance which reflects the correct legal position on review and fits the circumstances of this case.

Similarly, in our view, the applicant’s prayer entails a re-appraisal of the evidence adduced in the trial court and re-consideration of the issues covered in the impugned decision to establish whether or not the applicant was avoided by the respondent when he was ready and willing to repay the loan. We think, this latitude is taking us beyond the scope of review.

In the circumstances, we find no material to support the assertion that, there exists a manifest error on the face of the record as per the legal dictates for which an order of review may be made. Accordingly, we 

find no difficulty in concluding that, the applicant has not met the legal threshold for review as required under section 4 (4) of the AJA and rule 66 (1) and (6) of the Rules.

In view of the above analysis, and the conclusions that ensued, it is irresistible for us to thrash out that the application is devoid of merits and thus, must fail. Consequently, we are constrained to dismiss it with costs to the respondent. It is so ordered.