ALLY ALJABRY SCANNED

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO. 28158 OF 2024 ALLY SALEHE AL-JABRY...................................... APPLICANT VERSUS SIMION SAIMON KYANDO............................. 1st RESPONDENT SALIM SALEHE AL-JABRY................................ 2nd RESPONDENT REGISTRAR OF TITLES.................................... 3rd RESPONDENT COMMISIONER FOR LANDS................ 4th RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................. 5th RESPONDENT RULING Date ofLast Order.O5.12.2024 Date of Ruling: 11,12.2024 T.N. MWENEGOHA, J: The applicant approached this Court praying to maintain status quo pending hearing of the main suit. Upon filing their counter affidavit, the respondents raised a notice of preliminary objection with two points of the same. However, before proceeding with the determination of the preliminary objection, this Court asked the parties to address it as to the competence of i i I the Application. Parties were asked to address the Court through written submissions and they did so. Their arguments are well considered. Turning to the Application at hand, the applicants brought this Application under Section 2 (3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act, Section 69 (e ), 95 and Order XXXV11 Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking maintenances of Status quo in respect of the Property known as Plot No 19, Block A, Kariakoo Area, Uhuru Street Dar es Salaam. However, the prayers advanced in their affidavit is different. The applicants, in their affidavit have advanced prayers seeking for Temporary Injunction, which is a different prayer from that of maintenance of status quo. Indeed, as argued by the respondents in their submission, the Court in the case of Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (Insia) Pvt Ltd and Pratibha Industries Ltd Consortium Vs Dar es Salaam Water And Sewage Authority (DAWASSA) Mise Civil Application No 237 OF 2020 had discussed this issue. Indeed, the Court in the said case discussed the argument whether the Application for maintenance of status quo and that of Temporary Injunction have the same legal effect in law. The Court affirmed that there is a difference between maintenance of status quo and interim Order for Injunction. It was expressed that: - "Z/7 between, before hearing and deciding upon the Application for a Temporary Injunction, the Court may grant an Order of maintenance ofStatus Quo, upon the prayer by the applicant, so as to protect the suit property from being disposed of or anyway i affected. Therefore, lifespan of an Order to maintain Status Quote extended to the date when another Order in that respect, such as Temporary Injunction is made upon the determination of the Application for interim Order” It was concluded on that point that therefore, it is for the interim order for Temporary Injunction, Application for Maintenance of Status Quo can be granted. Coming back to the Application in question, the applicants has prayed for maintenance of status quo however has also sworn affidavit seeking Temporal Injuction. As these are two different remedies, the Application is rendered incompetent and cannot stand. Consequently, the same is struck out with costs. 3