20120424 TZHC Dar es Salaam

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 62 OF 2011 ANDREW P. S. KIDIKU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TANZANIA POLICE FORCE 2. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL . . . . . . . DEFENDANTS Date of last order - 8/ 2/ 2012 Date of Ruling-24/4/2012 RULING Shangwa, J. On 29 th April, 2011, the plaintiff Andrew P. S. Kidiku filed his plaint claiming from the 1st defendant's office a total sum of Tshs.120,066,277 /= being salary in arrears, unpaid rent, arrears on transfer allowance and personal money used on repair and maintenance of office vehicle. 2 On 18 th July, 2011, the learned State Attorney filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on a point of law that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain labour matters. On 8 th December, 2011, I ordered that this point of law should be argued by way of written submissions. In his written submissions, the learned State Attorney for 1st and 2 nd defendant ·abandoned the point of objection raised in their Notice of Preliminary objection filed on 18 th July, 2011 and substituted it with another point of objection to the effect that the matter is hopelessly time barred. They submitted that the cause of action arose in the year 2004 . but the suit was filed on 29 th April, 2011. They contended that the time limit for suits founded on contract as provided for under the Law of Limitation Act, 1971, First Schedule, item 7 is six years. In reply thereto, the plaintiff submitted that the cause of action in this case arose in 2006 when he retired from 3 employment and not in 2004 when he was transferred from Lindi to Tabora. He said that in 1999, 2001 and 2004, he could not sue his employer namely the Inspector General of Police when he was still his employee. In my opinion, it is quite true that in the year 1999, 2001 and 2004, the plaintiff could not sue his employer for his claims which arose in the aforementioned years as per paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his plaint because he was still in his employment. I agree with him that the cause of action arose in 2006 vvhen he retired. After all, by 2006 when he retired, his claims that accrued in the year 1999, 2001 and 2004 had not yet been settled and are resisted by the defendants since then to the present date. Therefore, as the cause of action arose in 2006 and he filed his suit on 29 th April, 2011 and as his suit is based on contract, it cannot be said that when he filed his suit on 29 th April, 2011, he was time barred. This is because the 4 Limitation period of six years provided for under Item 7, First Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 within which he had to file his suit had not yet expired. For this reason, I overrule the point objection raised by the learned State Attorney against the suit. I do so with costs. ? ~ A.Shangwa ~ ~ ~ JUDGE ; () 6';, y "srP.1cr ~~r1/ _,.,.,,;/ --- 24/4/2012 Delivered in open court this 24 th day of April, 2012 in the presence of the plaintiff and in the presence of Mr. Mwintasi, State Attorney for defendant. ~ · A.Shangwa JUDGE 24/4/2012