transroad tanzania limited vs tanzania revenue authority 2002 tzhc 2027 2 july 2002

IN THTD HXGL-I OCU^T OP T'jT CAHT/ AT IDS .GAL'-.AK C I V I L C/iSlv'KO, 110 0 ? I 99 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 — .,_ ----- a.- .-- - • -•»•'■■■»u.0-- ....... »JjSFglfB I H 3MA, J. In C i v i l c , s o No. n o ,f 1 9 9 3 T r ,nsro,d (T » 0 , l h l ,) j_. on 23/4/1993 fi l e d „ ,„< * = w : - • • 1 “ --.e Jinsania Rovenu. Authority y the n d-fpnr^-+ - x e n c ^ wt p r . y i c , ; ; f^o r j -J b ^ eRt ^ d :crea ag a i s t tho Defendant th^ts— («,) re s t it u t i o n to the p l , i a t t o , ,. c<>tlslg„ Wi_ release of seizes trailer nus b e r TZ 7 2006 to the «*. owners ia good c o n d i t i o n of r e p a i r (c) D^mag-es s— (1) T.Shs. 1 2 0 ,000/=: 7Dor doV -1 „ „ . 7 1 'r u'^> xor loss Of income on tho trailer* - h-> ^ tJjto d * s t u of seizure to t h e date' of jud^Tiont ( 2) container firaarKra charges- ■ _ „ t U S S 20 p e r d a y from the date of seizure to tbe date of judgment (3) T.Shs. 26,000,000/= bciae A s s of « p aoto3 i n o o o s on tho C’ l i s i g r a c n t on the opoti s i i r k o t . (dj Interest at the b a n k H P +- -4 ^ . r \ -3-1- tue day of jbd^nent ^ g ; Costs of tho suit (f) a n y other re lief fs) r.t ,, vb/ ' c°~ h o n o u r a b l e court n a y deem fit and just to award.. T h e d e f endant up o n b e i n g se-v-d wi+h tho ^1 • ^ 1 „ ~ wx„ii the pla i n t and with lG^ Ve Of tb O nniTpf •Pi 1 a •j. 13/ 7/ 9 " X “ r " t t e “ • * - * « ” " * « f d . f - o o „ oa /r/9 . . 1 0 defence OTinly d i l u t e d tho p l a i n t i f f s , I W „ t Hon- emphasizing, anon,;, other t h < r » , «,,* *. , . ' ------ , -- o'--’? ~~i--t trjQ seizure of the c o n t a i n e r was o c c a s i o n e d b y fal^c- '00 t a-,- +-• t • ■*'I;^ - c uGC -Lara t ion on t,he goods sxiippe^f as well as ^ailu'^e pf -h , . ,. U U i C Cj- b h '- p l a x n t x f f to P^a v1y - ’u tv ~U L f ~r^ -i tJu VHHt X. — tnand^o on tne ? oods u n d e r refor&nca I t c,«® to p o m that s c » t : - ; c in September, 2001, three years a f t e r the p le * d t OBs l,v’ boen f i l e d , the defendant f i l e d a notice of p r o l i „ i D, r y objection r a i s i n g , point of l „ „ t v . t t p l , i „ t is incurably defective f or. contravening the provision, °* * ° “r V I 1 R u l s 1 °f the C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Code. Sith l"a v e of the court the p „ r t l e „ ,,c'a „ r i t t e n submissions to ar-u- toe p r e l i m i n a r y objection ...hereby the dfendant ,„s r e p r e s e n t o r b y K r Beloko, a lega l o f f i c e r «.-;ile M r . M v i t a S/aisak, l e a r n e d ad v o c a t e r e p r e s e n t e d the plaintiff. A r g u i n g the p r e l i m i a ^ T v o‘x iof-i on M-»- ^ i i .,. ^t y J ^ C l l ° Hjjeleko c i t i n g t h e p ro visio n s of Or^sr vtt t ^ ^ . VJ- iUlG 1 tne C i v i l Pr o c e d u re Code 1 Q <6 enumerated the mand-'itorv ^irtic-I-'--- +--> ■ . ■' - i a c a '!iJ to contained in a pl^Xnt# FurthGrnnro -14. r ju., A ViGW o f Mr. B e l e k o that I?u v, of Order V I I G " t>r- r n ^ * " i®P°ses a m a n d a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t tnat a plai n t should contain a nt n t r ^ „ + -.-p - ^ . t ^ e n t of v a lue of the sub^oct . o t t e r o f the sui t f o r p u r p o s e s of J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d c o u r t - . L so f a r as the 0. » e , d „i t s . Hr. foieko finds t ha t the ’ - s u l je c t m a t t e r of the suit, to wit the trotter and *3ol pieces o f f o o t b a l l s n ot to . a v a b e e n stated in t he r l , . t . -nee , serious omission rendering the p l „ l n t d e f e c t i v e ' assuming th,t the c o u r t = jurisdiction. £^r * Bcloko hac? v o t n o -K-•r a i , .. " ":ox ^ °unCj t o his p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n in that the r b i n f _ _ . pla m t uoi o r e the c o u r t do e s n o t c o n t a i n f a c t o to show that the c „ . „ t j u r i s d i c t i o n so as to comply With the provisions of Action 13 of tbe Civ l l p Codp io/<< ™ ^ 1 rne ^ v U Proceoure Z V : “ : , W B m m * the e u w t M t a “ ' ° ivii no, 17 9 /9 1 egi-, r y ( u n r e p o r t e d ) w^r: c i t e d b y Mr.. De l e k o , Xn r e p l y the learned advoc^t^ -t - th ^ ~>y*'-si*; * * p l a x n t i f f attacked ^ ^-^nxnary objection for b a i n , f^l^d out f* a n v r*t- + 4. ^ out of time and at not the earliest c i ^ o r t u n i t v d ^ f i i G n 4-| ^ since t.ne same has boon Hr v, * Z U t C r SU" E e * M t ** «*• w r i t t e n statement. * t, ” th° p ro v i" ’-'o= of Order V I I I Rula l ( .,) f the O t r l l P r o c e d u r e Code in support. On the q u e s t i o n of j u r i s d i c ^ h *- i ic. ! n u ls c o n t e n d e d by Mr Jaxsaka learned a d v o c a t e tb*t t— * „ nf _ , ' 7 - i - u a 2. x o f t h e p l a i n t ^ exp ressly stated the j u ris d ic tio n *■ that th * i- ^ ' court n o t w i t h s t a n d ^ - - t h a t t h o r e l i e f s p r a y e d in the p l , :,. s ,r o rf. . ' n d "'“ •for the reloase of ’ ■ 4. --stl y d C w ir,t o? °f trjJ s u b ^ c t m.s c:.> t<;e 3 u .t n the alternative Mr . Vfeisaka 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 Tanzania Liquids Storage Co. Ltd V. Kejan Industries Ltd in Civil Case No. 179/91 with the present case. However Mr. Waisaka did not elaborate on the distinction In his short rejoinder Mr. Beleko was of 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 competency or incompetency of the suit is called into question. It is quite plain that Rule 1 of Order VII of 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 of 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. Orc1^ accordingly. S. IHEMA JUDGE Li 2/7/2002 F o r the Plaintiff: Absent but served For the Defendanti Mr. Beleko C.c . Kotnba Courts R u l i n g rea- this 2/7/po^^ • -l. <*- tjxs -i/7/2 o^<. xn but in the pre sence of Mi-. D .l»k o f o r the but in too ibsenco o f Mr. W<iis,l« f o r th. in tl„uyh 2o,cl before F.S.K. Mutungi Di st r i c t R^^istr^r# jl* • •K . M u tu n g*i r^C-IGTRAR 2/7/ 2 00 2