abdulkadilmanzi rashid and others vs the board of trustees of the national social security fund 2020 tzhclandd 81 30 april 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2018 ABDULKADILMANZI RASHID & 103 OTHERS............ APPLICANTS VERSUS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITYFUND........................... ..................... ^RESPONDENT YONO AUCTION MART & COURT BROKER .................................... ........... 2nd RESPONDENT MAIGE, J RULING: 1. In this matter, the applicants have moved the Court for an order staying the execution of the order of this Court dated 11th April 2017 pending final determination of the Land Case No. 225 of 2016. 2. In Miscellaneous Land Application No. 235 of 2018, I have noted, the applicants applied, in respect of the same order, for extension of time within which to apply for variation of the order. 1 |P a g e 3. The order under discussion, it is apparent, is a temporary injunctive order whose life span, according to Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the CPC, is 6 months from the date of the decision. In Miscellaneous Land Application No. 235 of 2018, this Court held that the order under discussion having been issued on 27th April 2018, had ceased to exist when the application was being instituted. It therefore, struck out the application for being incompetent. 4. In here, I am being called upon to determine a similar issue which has been raised in the notices of preliminary objections by the respondents through their counsel Frank Mgeta and Samuel Shedrack. They have submitted, correctly in my view that, with the expiry of the life span of the temporary order in question, there is no order to be stayed. Mr. Mandele for the applicants seems to resist the preliminary objection maintaining that the application is still valid because the respondents have not carried out the execution. With respects, I cannot agree with him. The order as to monthly payment was just a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Since I have held in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 235/18 that, the temporary order under discussion had already expired when the said application was being made, and, this application having been filed in the same month and year, it suffers the same consequence. 5. I therefore, agree with the counsel for the respondents that, for reason of the expiry of the temporary injunctive order under discussion, the application at hand cannot be maintained. As such there is no order capable of being stayed. The application is henceforth struck out for being incompetent. I will not give an order as to costs in the circumstance. It is so ordered. I.MAIGE JUDGE 30/ 04/2020 COURT: Ruling delivered in abs il 2020 at 2:30 in Chambers, I.MAIGE JUDGE 30/ 04/2020 ORDER: Parties be notified i 1 I.MAIGE JUDGE 30/ 04/2020 E 3 |Page