charles japhet maro vs board of trustees of the public service social security fund and ag 2021 tzhc 7356 15 november 2021

charles japhet maro vs board of trustees of the public service social security fund and ag 2021 tzhc 7356 15 november 2021

The suit was struck out because the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a 90 days’ notice to both the Attorney General and Solicitor General as stipulated by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, rendering the suit incompetent.

Citation
charles japhet maro vs board of trustees of the public service social security fund and ag 2021 tzhc 7356 15 november 2021
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Japhet Maro; 1st Defendant: Board of Trustees of the Public Service Social Security Fund; 2nd Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Suit struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Preliminary Objection, Notice Requirement, Government Proceedings, Pension Benefits
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Social Security Law Jurisdiction Preliminary Objection Notice Requirement Government Proceedings Pension Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Japhet Maro

Plaintiff

Board of Trustees of the Public Service Social Security Fund

1st Defendant

The Attorney General

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is incompetent for failure to serve a 90 days’ notice to the Attorney General and Solicitor General as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction in light of section 44(1) of the Social Security (Regulatory Authority) Act

Ratio Decidendi

The suit was struck out because the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a 90 days’ notice to both the Attorney General and Solicitor General as stipulated by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, rendering the suit incompetent.

Court Disposition

Suit struck out with costs

Orders

  • Suit is struck out for non-compliance with section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act
  • Plaintiff to pay costs