19990729 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
The suit is dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 97 of the Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act No. 8 of 1982 regarding service of notice on the first defendant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19990729 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- Parties
- Plaintiff: 261 residents of City of Dar es Salaam; Defendant: First Defendant (City Authority); Defendant: Second Defendant
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 29 July 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
- Outcome
- suit dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Misjoinder of Parties, Statutory Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
261 residents of City of Dar es Salaam
Plaintiff
First Defendant (City Authority)
Defendant
Second Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is maintainable against the first defendant for non-compliance with section 97 of the Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act No. 8 of 1982
- 2 Whether the second defendant was wrongly joined to the suit
Ratio Decidendi
The suit is dismissed for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 97 of the Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act No. 8 of 1982 regarding service of notice on the first defendant.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed with costs
Orders
- Suit dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
vIVIL C/~3.8 no. 31 CF 1994 J. Some 261 iesidents of City of Dqr es sql~~m hqve broi..11..;ht this suit ;:i_.~,:iiG::;t tbc:: def0nc'.Ants in which they clA.im ::i. number of reliefs. The first c;e:fend"lnt hA.s rA.ised three points of objection. Firstly, i t is ,qrguec1 th:-1t the suit is not m~intqin~ble qG~inst ths first defendqnt becquse, required to co~ply with section 97 of the LocA.l Government (UrbA.n Autt10::. i tie:.;) Act 9 No 8 of l982. 1 Under Section 99 of the ~bove - mentioned Act the pl~intiff w;:is required to effect service by delivering i t to the ·civtirmA.n or the Chief Executive Officer of the first defend~ot. Inste:::id, qad this is Admitt•d, A dem~a~ notice w~s served on the Chief Government Vohrnr, l·'iir:i:..~try of L:,,.1;,s. It is ~lleged by the plqintif:f t1rn.t notice wrn ultim~tely brought to the qttection of tb~ City Dir0ctor ~nd Of the City Soliciter. I think it c~~~ot aow be ~rcued upon qny r~qaonqble ground thqt the requiroraects of aection 97, qfora~cited, .qre m;=i·:F;~tory, The position ts oc by st;,tute ~od i f further "'!U thori ty i•s required it is reA. di ly :::iv.::i i lqble fro~i, ci3cisions of the court of A~~~ql q~d from t~ie Court. In one of those n • • • thr.it si.n-:::c t:i)d provisions of section 97 of the Locql Governm0nt (Loc~l Autdorfti0s) Act, No, 8 of 1982 qpply to the suit in question 9 non- compliqnce t-ji th renders th 2 suit unm~ intq in.,bleQ ~s.ri:-1 Muni·cip::il _CQ_uncil on.. Lyr.:,muyq Construe tion ~o. Ltd. 2 Civii hppeql No. 25 df 1989. So b•3 it !-Ji th this suit~ The first ~bj~ctioa would succeed. Secondly, it is ccote~_c:8;:.; the s.econd defendr-rnt h~s been \·irongly joinzd to t;:-:::e 3ouit. The pl~inti·f'f' _concedes the misjoinder~ ===t"'...tbou.;:h b.e correctly :otrgues th:,t qlone cnnnot be q 6 ro ..rnd upon ;.-1;~:icb t.be➔ suit should be dismi:c:sed:. I ~gree entirely th~t 1;1:Lsjoindor is :::i curqble defect. Th.e s0cond objection ~-10L:ld, 'tI-toro:f:'o.rep f':c-iil. I think the need to decide thra ttii:;'.'[1 objGction does not qrtso in view of whqt follows my f~nc'i:".ng on tbi3 first ground. Upon heqring leqrnod counsel, 90d upon considering those qrguments, qnd upon my fiodiags in respect of the first objcctioo 1 the suit is dismissed with costs. Deli ver<3d. SGD. J- .·I•'i • · N/\.Ci:PJ\T J A JUDGE 29/7/1999 Absent (Served) r1Ir • N dy-9 n <'Ibo 26/10/1999