19961212 TZHC Dar es Salaam

1f f / 'IN. THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ~.-.-::..,..-4.c~.•=..::.a:..:s.'.·....,~~ CIVIL CASE.NO. 183/96. . . . D.D .L •. INV...i:ST INTERNATIONAL . . LTD •••••• ., ••••• PLAINTIFF . · VJI;RSUS TIIB TANZANIA "IIARBOUS AUTHORITY o • • o·o·• O e •••·DEFENDANT TANZAN:tA REVENUE AU';rIIORITY · \ ~espondent has filed a suit against the two applicants. Each of. th~m filed a written statementl'ct!fehct:}:• to which respondent filed separate re~ies. As a;J11 elaboration to its replies, respondent produced copies of \ a num9Eir of documents as annextures to the said Replies. . Applicants· are . objecting to the said replies and annextures on the ·ground that they are · prejudicial to their defences. Hence they are reque$.ting this court to ~ ~--._,.,.. ·· · · -erder. the ..rec1p_o119-ent · amend its plaint so as· to includ~ what. · . _ _.,.~ ' ... itr . the.· :Rer>liei:,.-"~n:~-~~~.-~,:~~.:~f~;--~~ ·.. •. ·. ---·-----:-----------.... ........ . .___.__ _.:__ -\:..-":_;:: --:,-., _;_ · i ~ first respondent has .cited the provisions of C?z:der: Z rule z~-Oraeir"~;...,+-- ·--:-:-· · ru.1e 4 and Order 7 rule 8 of th~ Civil I)•og:erlnre Code. Similar argument. ;_:~~-;;2:;:~--~::~=~=~~:,,!:,,~;~~..:rui1'~~-~_..;;~the- secoruLrespond.ent~ ·-·- . . . On beh~f of the respondent, Mr. Mwaisaka has strongly contested tc this' a?pli.cation.. He . contended that his .Replies do not raise anything .· ali;lif° to the ·cause of action a s ~ - in the plaint. Instead what / i;h' respondent did is to furnish some · fa.ots to. oontroYeJ:"t what _the . ·y ... /·. • jappli~ant.s have asa0x-te-d ,in the:ir defences. / .. )',.,. .. Counsels for the applicants want· the respondent to amend his plaint·.·'"· so that it includes all.its claims including those.a.J.J,.egedly, raised in . . the Replies. After going through all the pleadings on record 131'.>!'far, •. I cannot, with respect, see the merit of this argument. In the both Rep],ies, respondent is not trying to raise any new ground of claim or any allegation of fact inconsistent with what has been pleaded in the plaint. \ What the respondent hasete..t~¢n its ·Replies are for-controverting what. . ·• . r the applicants have raised in their defences. All the documents introduced · · . i ;.f. as annextures · to these Replies are ·for that purpose. The reference to a·· .. :--f casi which is pending befor~ Mapigano J, is• also intended to answer an . ·· b ass~tion raised by the first respondent in his defence .::t /· .:J\1 I As a whole I ca.xi see nothing prejudicial to the defence case in the / / Replies of _the respondent" This application is. ther!;lfore dismissed. ,,, ... 3t . :l : ~~,.1 .... ·,:.$ I -/2 / US! .. 111111a - 2-- ··12/12/96. For the 1st. Applicant/Defendant Mnzava, ·For the 2nd Applicant/Defendant Beteko. For the Respo:nden t/Plt : . Mwaisaka. .: •, t1n,zav~o .Consequent _to this ruling I would like to amend our qefence so that ·we .can the reply the issues raised in the Reply._ .. A:Ltenati_vely r apply for a rejoind~r to the -Reply. I have similar application. I pra:y for leave to file.a rejoinder. !i~<g.f!~a • No objection. Order: t PT Mention on 23/1/97 Rejoinders to be filed by-3/1/o//, . ;r. . .. ~-~(~~~~,.~~- ...·.~---~, ·-· . ,•, ··• ....-~~·-. .--,-+,-• '•. . .·•·-· ·-r<:-~~: . +:-.. . - ·_:.: . ~-~ ·,-~:·,..-.:~;..~~~/~ . . -.:;:4 12/12/96. r . , .. .( .'