tansroad tanzania ltd vs tanzania revenue autholity 2002 tzhc 2006 2 july 2002

IN THTD HXGL-I OCU^T OP T'jT CAHT/ AT IDS .GAL'-.AK CIVIL C/iSlv'KO, 110 0? I9 9 O TRANSROAD T.AJ^:\4HIA I,; -t .i q .... .. .p l a i n t i f f 7t T/^N^ W T A «••rrv-r — .,__ .-- - • -•»•'■■■»u .0-- ....... »JjSFglfB ----- a.- IH3MA, J. In Civil c,so No. n o ,f 1 9 9 3 Tr,nsro,d (T »0,lhl,) j_. on 23/4/1993 filed „ ,„<* = w: - • • 1 “ --.e Jinsania Rovenu. Authority y the n d-fpnr^-+ ^ -x enc^ w t pr.yic,;; for j -Jb ^ eRt ^ d:crea agaist tho Defendant th^ts— («,) restitution to tho pl,ia tto, o i t h o „hole c<>tlslg„ Wi_; release of seizes trailer nusber TZ 7 2006 to the «*. owners ia good condition of repair (c) D^mag-es s— (1) T.Shs. 120,000/=: f 73or div 1 'r u' -T'.^ loss Of ^> xor ^ income• on tho trailer* f f h «-> ^ 4.„ ^ tl3u- d^tu of seizure to th& date' of jud^Tiont (2) c o n t a i n e r Ciaarrijs charges-■ _ at US $ 20 per day from the date of seizure to tbe date of judgment (3) T.Shs. 26,000,000/= bciae A s s of « p aoto3 inooos on tho C ’osigraont on the opatl market. (dj Interest at the bank H P +- -4 ^ . / \ tue d^y °f jbdguent ^g ; Costs of tbo suit (f) any othor relieffs) ^ th ~ ’> - ,, vb/ ' c°~ honourable court nay deem fit and just to award.. The defendant upon being se-v-d wi+h +*„ ^ •. „ ~ wx„ii the plaint and witfi lG^ Ve Of tb O n n i T p f •Pi 1 a • j. 1 3 / 7 / 9 .. 1 ' f l l " . lta “r i t t e “ St-Tte^snt of def e nce „a ' ' -i-llG vJofotlCG v r**i 'i™". 4. -> i • tno P l a i n t i f f . „ilo8, t i o M « * » » » » * . „no„,? othor things, th,t tho „ i M r » of tlle ' container was occasioned by fal^c- *oo t a-,- +-• t• J uOC -Lara t ion on t,he goods sxiippe^f as well as ■j:'ailii"G pf -h , . ,. U U i C Cj- bh'- Plaxntxff to ^Pav -’u tv 1y ~U ~r^ L f -i Ht tJu VHX. — aian-J^o on tne ?oods under refor&nca It c,«® to p o m that sc»t:-;c in September, 2001, three years after the pleadinsjs S,v' bosn filed, the defondaot file a notice of proli„iD,ry objection raising , point of l„„ tv, pl,i„t is incurably defective for. contravening the provision. °* *°“r VI1 Ruls 1 °f the Civil Procedure Code. Sith l"av e of the court the p„rtle„ ,,c'a aritteo submissions to or-u- toe preliminary objection ...hereby the dfendant ,„s represents by Kr Beloko, a legal officer « i l e Mr. Hwito S/aisak, learned advocate represented the plaintiff. Arguing the prelimia^Tv o'H ^rf-inn M-»- ^ i i . ,. ^ty J ^ Cll°Hjjeleko citing tba provisions o f Or^sr v t t t ^ ^ . VJ- iUlG 1 tno Civil Procedure Code ic, enumerated the mand-'itorv r-artic^ 1 ^ - +■■> ■ . ■' - i a c a '!iJ to contained in a piaxtlt# FurthGrnnro -14. r ju., A ViGW of Mr. Seleko that of Order VII G " t>r- r n ^ * " i®P°ses a mandatory requirement tnat a plaint should contain a ntn t r ^ „ + -.-p n -Tat^mfant of value of the sufci °f the suxt for purposes of jurisdiction and court SO far as the 0. » = ,dB,its. Kr- ;;olako finds th<t t b _ TOI- - .1- Sul ject matter of the suit, to wit the trotter and *3ol pieces of footballs not to .:;,va been .toted in the rl,.t . -nee a serious omission rendering the pl„int defective ' assuming thot the court .as jurisdiction. £^r * Beloko hac? vot i , .. " ":ox ^ °unCj to his preliminary objection in that the r b i n f _ _ . pla m t . w o r e the court does not contain facto to show that the c„.„t hae jurisdiction so as to comply With the provisions of Action 13 of the Civil P Codp io/<< ™ ^ 1 rne ^ v U Proceouj ZV: “: , W B m m * the e u w t M t a “ ' ° ivii efil“ ry funrePorted) wfir: cited by Mr.. Deleko, no, 179/91 Xn reply the learned advoc^t^ -t - th ^ ~>y*'-si*; * * plaxntiff attacked piaiTnin^ y objection for bein f ^ , d 0ut ^ ■ . anv r*t- + 4- ^ out of time aad at not the earliest ci^ortunitv d ^ fi'fG'l fhrnr, since t.ng same has boo Hr v, *Z U t C r SU" Ee* M t ** «*• written statement. t, ” C th° provi"’-'o= of Order VIII Rula l(.,) f the Civil Procedure Cede in support. On thequestion of jurisdic^ h *- i .c , c “ 'n l v ls contended by Mr Jaxsaka learned advocate tb*t- t— * n of. _ , ' i Ma.a XX o f t h e p l a i n t h a o 7 expressly stated the j u r i s d t c t < f *' that th - i- ^ ' court notwithstand^-- that thu relief, prayed in the pl.. :„ s ,ro •for the reloase of t’ r- ^ ^ ■ 4. --stly dc^.^^toj °f trjJ sub^ c t m. s c:o t<;e 3uit 3 n the alternative Mr. Waisaka implores the court to allow amendment to the plaint for the interest of substantive justice and at the sane time seeks to distinguish the case of T a n z a n i a Liquids Storage Co. Ltd V. Kejan Industries Ltd in Civil Case No. 179/91 the present case. However Mr. Waisaka did not elaborate on the distinction. In his short rejoinder Mr. Beleko was o f the firm view that since the preliminary objection was based on a point of law, the question of limitation would not arise so long as the c o m p e t e n c y or incompetency of the suit is called into question. It is quite plain that Rule 1 of Order VII o f the Civil Procedure Code provides the mandatory particulars in a plaint. In particular Rule 1 (f) and (i) particularise that the plaint shall contain "the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction and a statement o f the value of the subject matter of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees so far as the case admits.* The present plaint appears not to comply with the above cited provisions of Rule 1 (f) and (i) of Order VII as such as correctly submitted by Mr. Beleko it is incurably defective. Adopting the holding of my brother Judge Bahati in the case cited above which is not disimilar to the present case I hold that the present case is to be rejected for being incurably defective and as such there is no plaint at all .-for all intents and purposes. It should further be .pointed out that it is the settled position of the law that the question of illegality is a fundamental one going to the root of the case and as such it can be raised at any time in the- course of trial. In sum and for the reasons stated I uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the plaint with costs. Qrc1^ accordingly. S. IHEMA JUDGE Li 2/7/2002 For the Plaintiff: Absent but served For the Defendanti Mr. Beleko C.c. Kotnba Courts Ruling rea- 2 /7 /po^^ • this -i/7/ <*- tjxs 2o^<. xn but -l. in the presence of Mi-. D.l»ko for the but in too ibsenco of Mr. W<iis,l« for th. in tl„uyh 2o,cl before F.S.K.Mutungi District R^^istr^r# jl*• •K . Mu tu n g*i r^C-IGTRAR 2/7/ 2 00 2 1