Land case no

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE N0.27990 OF 2023 CRUCIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED.............................. PLAINTIFF VERSUS PETER pETER jyNI0R......................................... jst DEFENDANT KURINGE REAL ESTATE COMPANY LIMITED...2ND DEFENDANT RULING 29h May 2024 L.HEMED, J On 19th December, 2023, the Plaintiff herein, CRUCIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED instituted the instant suit against the defendants PETER PETER JUNIOR and KURINGE REAL ESTATE CO.LTD for breach of contract. The Plaintiff seeks, among others for an » order that there exists a lawful and binding contract between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and that the 1st Defendant is in breach of the said contract of sale of land. The defendants disputed the said claims through the written statements of defence filed on 18th and 23rd January 2024. On 29th May 2024 the matter was called for final pretrial conference and in the course of framing issues the court realized that the cause of action and theTeliefs'^^^® prayed are based on contract. The advocates who appeared to represent the parties, Mr. Mganga Paul for the Plaintiff and Mr. Mlyambelele, Ng'weli, for the defendants were called to address if the court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The counsel for the Plaintiff opted to concede to the point and prayed to withdraw the matter with leave to refile. He also prayed so to do without costs. The learned counsel for the defendants had no objection-to-lhie ; prayer to withdraw the suit save that he prayed for costs to the 2nd defendant. Having heard from the learned counsel let me state at the outset that once the preliminary point of law has been raised, whether by the court or parties, it has to be determined. A party against whom the point has been - ■, ’ - Mt-.'t-hol- ■ raised has two options, one, to argue against such point or twd, to concede to it. Where the said party opts to concede, he/she will have no option of withdrawing his matter, which is the subject of the preliminary point of law. This is because, withdrawing the subject matter of the point of law, amounts to circumventing the point raised. Therefore, when a party opts to concede to the point raised, he automatically succumbs to the consequence thereof. In the present case, the point raised by the court is on the jurisdiction of the court to'determine* *' ■' the matter at hand and the consequence of it is for the suit to be struck out. In that regard, the prayer to withdraw the suit with leave to refile is , out of place. From the foregoing, I proceed to strike out the entire suit for want of jurisdiction of this court to determine it. The fact that the point has been raised by the court, each party to bear its own costs. Order accordingly. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 29T May ZQ24 JUDGE