abdallah k mgonja another vs permanent secretary ministry of works others 2003 tzhc 58 18 march 2003

IN 'IKE HIGH COURT OF TpZ/iNIA AT PAR ES SALAAM LICC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 63 OF 2002 1. AEDALLAE K. MGONJA ) o o o o o r o o v o APPLICANTS 2 . ROBINSON KONYO ) Versus 1. THE EhJRMANHHT SECRETARY MINISTRY ) OF WORKS ) 2. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 3. THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMPANY ) . . RESPONDENTS (IN RECEIVERSHIP) ) if. THE PRESIDENTIAL PARASTATAL SECTOR 2 EF 0K M COMMISSION (PSRC) ) R JJ L I N G Ifoema ^ J» * In iJifiic^Haneous Civil Cause No. 63/2002 the applicants, Abdallah K. Mgonja and Robinson ^onyo through the legal services of M * J . LUGAZIYA, .-cv cate of Dar es Balaam lew Chambers, lodged a -chsuaber summons seeking for the following orders: (i) *grant of leave to file an application for 'prerogative orders against the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works and the ..Presidential Paraetatal Sector Reform Commission (P.S.R.C.), first and 4 th ■ respondents, •t - . . . • . 1 (ii) costs and any other reliefs deemed. aappropriate. , The application filed urc’ o-r section. 2 (2) of the Judicature and Application of lews Ordinance, Section 17 (2) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents) and Miscellaneous Provisions Ordinance Cap 360 as amended by Act No. 55 of 1968, section 17 of act No. 27/91, ^.Qpdejp .XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code „19 ,6 $ is r ccornpanied by .the joint affidavit of the applicants* ■ ■ w * ' ' • V ■ . ", ’ ' . '- ■ . /p • • • • » / ■£. ^ r 't * . ■ - . „ • 2 It is deponded by tho applic. :.ts that they are the lawful tenants of houses on Plot No. 35 THB Estate Kijitonyama and Plot No. 83 A I>rive Inn Area the property of the National Itansport Company, the 3rd Respondents and that they have been notified that the premises have reverted to the 1 st respondent while their tenancy agreements subsists. That following this move the applicants are apprehensive that the-_r rights under the tenancy agreements will be compromised, hence their application seeking orders of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus against the first and kth respondents respectively. On 10th April 2002 I granted leave to the parties to argue the application through written submissions and a schedule to that effect was agreed to. Ruling was to be delivered on 03/07/2002. As neither the applicants nor the respondents complied with the order of the court ;o file the written submissions, the court on 03/7/2002 dismissed the -application for lack of prosecution. On receipt of the dismissal order of 3rd July 2002 the applicants Have fil^d' a chamber ,itmmons under section 95-a rid Order -IX Rule 13 for o»ders that the dismissal order ba set'aside and time be eSctend'®d for filing of written suTfeissidna*. iln ’ the a ffidavit in support of the ehamber/application'Mr, Kutabaazi Julius Lugaaiya has deponed .that -,Whi® sick relative- who eventually panned away, ; an 23rd,- June 2002“prevented' liim •from-'cocrplyiRg twith. the order : - of filing :the written submissions. furthermore-the application und «p. reference coatains matters, of -great public, importance ras ' : ,.s such ..the 'interests of justice require that it be disposed on merits 4; ,; ." ,:,-4 I? ^ ^ ® 1;res|:ondents aver ,thc*t the .reasons .for non Compliance .with the order of 10 A /2 0 0 2 are neither sufficient fco;warrant the. cutting aside of the respective. , order, Careful consideration of the arguments for and against * the aP ^ M ? M i o n for setting aside the dismissal order and restoration Q|.the .wain appi:cation clearly shows ^ k 9£ sufficient'and justifiable cause/reason a§ required by la v/*, , • ’ 3 It rapy be true that the learned advocate m s attending a sick relative who eventually passed away on 23rd June 2002, but the record clearly indicates that the applicant was ordered to file his submission in chief and the rejoinder on 16/5/2002 and 5/6/2002 respectively, There is every reason to opine that the applicant’ s advocate had ample time to take care of his sick relative as well as file the written submissions in compliance with the order of the court. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the application before me lias failed to satisfy the requirements of Order IX Rule 13 (1 ) for lack of sufficient cause and I dismiss it with costs. Order accordingly. S. Iheiaa JUDGE Court; -Ruling delivered before Mr. Karate sn,d I-'br0 Lugaziya learned advocates for the parties this 18/3/2003. S. :Iheraa JUDGE 18/ 5/ 2003 .