CHARLES KAHATANO LWEMPISI VS NBC RULING OF INTERIM INJECTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MWANZA SUB-REGISTRY)

AT MWANZA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 10780 OF 2024 (Arising from Land case no 10781 of2024, before the High Court of Tanzania, Mwanza sub-registry at Mwanza)

BETWEEN CHARLES KAHATANO LWEMPISI............................................. APPLICANT

VERSUS NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE LIMITED....................... 1st RESPONDENT ACCURATE RECOVERT AND AUCTIONS LTD..................... 2nd RESPONDENT NATURE'S FISH LIMITED.................................................. 3rd RESPONDENT

RULING 22th & 22th July, 2024 A. MATUMA, J. The applicant is seeking an interim injunction order against the Respondent who intends to evict him from the suit property pending a hearing and determination of the main suit Land Case No. 10781 of 2024. The applicant alleges that his landed property on plot no. 58 Block "T" at Tuwetugawe Street in Mwanza Region was sold to the 3rd Respondent without due process of the law. The 3rd Respondent in her affidavit denied having bought the suit property. i The 1st and 2nd Respondents who are alleged to have sold the property did not file counter affidavit and Mr. Galati learned advocate who represented them expressed that they didn't file the counter affidavit because they are less concerned with this application because it is mainly against the buyer who is not party to this application. Mr. Mwanalyela and Abdallah Kessy learned advocates represented the applicant and, in their submission, they mainly reiterated the contents of the applicant's affidavit which was earlier on adopted. Since the applicant in his affidavit, at paragraph 11 has pleaded that he asked the 1st Respondent for a certificate of sale but was denied and no counter affidavit against such depositions, and the fact that there is no dispute that the property in question has already been sold, I find that the applicant is entitled to the grant of this application because

his rights to the property are pending for determination in the main suit, and the respondents are not seriously contesting this application but distance themselves from the claims of the applicant. If at all it is a third party who purchased the suit property and who is not disclosed, he or she will have to appear before this court for the available legal remedies, if will be aggrieved with the order of this court. We cannot 2 leave the claims of the applicant unattended merely because the buyer is not certainly disclosed. In the meantime, it is the 1st and 2nd Respondents who are alleged to have sold the property but in accordance to the eviction notice, it is the 1st Respondent who intends to evict the applicant from the property. In that regard, the 1st Respondent and or her agents are hereby restrained from evicting the applicant from the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The 3rd Respondent who has distanced herself from the purchase of the suit property, is restrained from doing anything detrimental to the applicant pending hearing and determination of the main suit. I order the status quo which existed before the sale to be maintained until further orders as shall be determined in the main case. 3