abisai emanuel pande another vs inspector general of police others 2010 tzhc 423 10 june 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 153 OF 2007 ABISAI EMANUEL P A N D E ......................... 1st PLAINTIFF MARY MASSAWE................................. 2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE .... 1st DEFENDANT HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL.......... 2nd DEFENDANT MARIAM NASSOR K ISANGI......... 3rd DEFENDANT Date of last order : 19/3/2010 Date o f Ruling : 10/ 6/2010 RULING Shangwa, J. On 16/9/2008, the Advocate for the 3rd defendant in this case raised a point preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain Land matters. On 8/5/2009, I ordered that the point of preliminary objection should be argued by way of written submissions and counsel for the parties complied with the order. In brief, the Advocate for the 3rd defendant submitted that the plaintiffs among other things claim for restoration of the document of title and a house. He contended that as the claim concerns Land matters, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit in the High Court, land Division or in the District Housing and Land Tribunal depending on the pecuniary value of the claim. In reply, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the point of preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 3rd defendant is misconceived, groundless, unfounded and frivolous. He referred the court to paragraph 6 of the plaint where the plaintiffs clearly point out that the suit concerns a claim of damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs by the defendants, and restoration of the properties taken from the residential premises of the plaintiffs, and restoration of all documents which were taken from the plaintiffs’ premises at Ubungo, and restoration of the plaintiffs’ house which was illegally handed over to the 3rd defendant. According to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the court has been called upon by counsel for the 3rd defendant to determine as to whether or not this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no where in the Notice of Preliminary Objection is it indicated that this court is also required to decide as to whether or not the plaint was properly signed or verified. I will therefore deal with the issue of jurisdiction only. In order to find out as to whether or not this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, I went through the plaint by reading each paragraph. Paragraph 6 of the plaint by clearly shows that the plaintiffs’ claim against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants who are jointly and severally sued is for the payment of Tshs 200,000,000/= (Two hundred million shillings only) being damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs by the defendants, restoration of all properties taken from the plaintiffs’ residential premises, restoration of documents of title and other documents taken from the plaintiffs’ premises at Ubungo and restoration of the plaintiffs’ house which was illegally handed over to the 3rd defendant. In my view, the claim involved between the parties is not land. The claim is founded on malicious prosecution. As correctly submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' claim is not founded on ownership of land. The mere fact that the plaintiffs are inter - alia seeking for restoration of documents of title and restoration of the house which was illegally handed over to the 3rd defendant in a suit founded on malicious prosecution does not render the dispute between the parties turn into a land dispute. Therefore, I overrule the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 3rd defendant. I make no order as to costs. 10/ 6/2010 Delivered in open court this 10th day of June, 2010 in the presence of Mr. Mosha for the plaintiffs, Ms Temi for 1st & 2nd defendant and Mr. Shirima for 3rd defendant. ^ ^ A . A.Shangwa JUDGE 10/ 6/2010 MR. MOSHA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: My Lord, we pray for a date of holding the First pre - trial conference. ORDER: First pre - trial conference is fixed on 18/6/2010. A.Shangwa JUDGE 10/ 6/2010