abdallah k mgonja another vs permanent secretary ministry of works others 2003 tzhc 33 18 march 2003

IN 'IKE HIGH COURT OF TpZ/iNIA

AT PAR ES SALAAM LICC. CIVIL CAUSE NO. 63 OF 2 002 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 EF0 KM COMMISSION (PSRC) )

B U L I H G I foema^ J , In iJifiic^Haneous C i v i l Cause No. 63/2002 the a p p lic a n ts , Abdallah K. Mgonja and Robinson Monyo through the l e g a l s e r v ic e s o f M *J. LUGAZIYA, .-cv cate o f Dar e s Balaam lew Chambers, lodged a -chsuaber suniiaone seeking fo r the fo llo w in g o rd e rs: ( i ) *grant o f le a v e to f i l e an a p p lic a tio n fo r 'p re ro g a tiv e ord ers a g a in s t the Permanent S e c re ta ry , M in istry o f Works and the .. P re s id e n tia l P a r a e t a t a l Sector..Reform Commission ( P .S .R .C .) , f i r s t and 4 th respondents, t . . . 1 (ii) c o s ts and any other r e l i e f s deemed. aa p p ro p ria te . The a p p lic a tio n f i l e d urc’o-r section. 2 (2) o f the Ju d ic a tu re and A p p lica tio n o f lews Ordinance, Sectio n 17 (2) o f the Law Reform ( F a t a l A ccidents) and M iscellan eous P ro visio n s Ordinance Cap 360 a s amended by Act No. 55 o f 1968, sectio n 17 o f a c t No. 2 7 / 9 1, ^.Qpdejp .XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 and se c tio n 95 o f the C i v i l Procedure Code „ 19 ,6 $ i s r ccornpanied by .the jo in t a f f i d a v i t o f the a p p lic a n ts* 2 I t i s deponded by tho a p p lic. :.t s th a t th ey a re the la w fu l ten an ts o f houses on P lo t No. 35 THB E sta te Kijitonyam a and P lo t No. 83 A I>rive Inn Area the p ro p e rty o f the N ational Ita n sp o rt Company, the 3rd Respondents and

th at th ey have been n o t ifie d th a t the prem ises have re v e rte d to the 1 s t respondent w hile t h e ir tenancy agreem ents s u b s is t s . That fo llo w in g t h is move the a p p lic a n ts a re apprehensive th a t the-_r r ig h t s under the tenancy agreem ents w il l be compromised, hence t h e ir a p p lic a tio n seeking o rd ers o f p ro h ib itio n , c e r t i o r a r i and mandamus a g a in s t the f i r s t and kth respondents r e s p e c t iv e ly . On 10 th A p r il 2002 I granted le a v e to the p a r t ie s to argue the a p p lic a tio n through w ritte n subm issions and a schedule to th a t e f f e c t was agreed t o . R u lin g was to be d e liv e re d on 03 / 0 7 / 2 0 0 2 . As n e ith e r the a p p lic a n ts nor the respondents complied with the order o f the court ;o f i l e the w ritte n sub m ission s, the court on 0 3 / 7/2002 dism issed the -a p p lic a tio n fo r la c k o f p ro se c u tio n . On receipt o f the d is m is s a l order o f 3 rd J u l y 2 0 0 2 the a p p lic a n ts Have fil^d' a chamber ,itmmons under s e c tio n 95-arid Order IX R ule 13 for o»ders that the d is m is s a l ord er ba s e t ' aside and time be eSctend'®d for f i l i n g o f w ritte n suTfeissidna*. iln ’the a f f idavit in support of th e eh am ber/application Mr. K utabaazi J u l i u s Lugaaiya has deponed .th at -,Whi® s ic k r e la t iv e - who e v e n tu a

lly passed aw ay ; an 23rd- June 2 0 0 2 “ prevented' liim •from-'cocrplyiRgtwith. th e order : o f f i l i n g ;tfae written sub m issio n s. furtherm ore th e a p p lic a tio n uad «p. r e fe r e n c e c o n ta in s m a tte rs, o f -great p u b lic , im portance ra s ' : ,.s such ..the’ in t e r e s t s o f ju s t ic e re q u ire that i t be d isp o sed on m e r it s 4; , ; . " , :,-4 I ? J"c^ y {^ ^ re s p o n d e n ts a v e r th^t the .reasons .fo r non Compliance w ith the orqler o f 10 A /2 0 0 2 a re n e ith e r s u f f ic i e n t fco;w arrant t.he c u ttin g a sid e o f the r e s p e c tiv e , o rd e r , C a re fu l c o n sid e ra tio n o f the arguments fo r and a g a in st th e aP^M ?M ion fo r s e t t in g a s id e the d ism issa l order and r e s to r a t io n Ql. the .BBin a p p l.' catip n c le a r ly shows ^ k 9f s u ff ic ie n t 'a n d ju s t i f i a b l e cause/re.eson a§ req u ired by la v/*, • * >• •/ 3 3 I t rapy be tru e th at the learned advocate m s atten d in g a s ic k r e la t iv e who e v e n tu a lly passed away on 23rd June 2002, but the record c le a r ly in d ic a te s th a t the ap p lica n t was ordered to f i l e h is submission in c h ie f and the re jo in d e r on 16/5/2002 and 5/6/2002 r e s p e c t iv e ly , There i s every reason to opine th a t the a p p lic a n t’ s advocate had ample time to take care o f h is s ic k r e la t iv e a s w ell a s f i l e the w ritten subm issions in compliance with the order o f the co u rt. In the circum stances I am s a t i s f ie d th at the a p p lic a tio n before me lias fa ile d to s a t i s f y the requirem ents o f Order IX Rule 13 ( 1 ) fo r la c k o f s u f f ic ie n t cause and I d ism iss i t w ith c o s t s . Order a cc o rd in g ly . S . Iheiaa

JUDGE C ourt; -Ruling d eliv ere d before Mr. Karate sn,d Lugaziya learned advocates fo r the p a r t ie s t h is 18 /3/20 0 3. S . : Iheraa

JUDGE 18/ 5/ 2003 .