20030718 TZHC Arusha
The defendant failed to substantiate the claim that it is a specified Corporation by not citing or producing any government notice; therefore, the preliminary objection is unsubstantiated and dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20030718 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Desideri Njunwa t/a DP Investment; Defendant: Tanzania Hotels Investment Limited
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 18 July 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Necessary Parties, Maintainability of Suit
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Desideri Njunwa t/a DP Investment
Plaintiff
Tanzania Hotels Investment Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is maintainable for want of joinder of a necessary party (PSRC)
- 2 Whether the defendant is a specified Corporation requiring leave under S.9(1) of Cap 25
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant failed to substantiate the claim that it is a specified Corporation by not citing or producing any government notice; therefore, the preliminary objection is unsubstantiated and dismissed.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Orders
- preliminary objection dismissed
- costs awarded to plaintiff
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CIVIL CASE NO. 7 OF 2002 DESIDERI NJUNWA t/a DP INVESTMENT ... ... .. PLAINTIFF - Versus - TANZANIA HOTELS INVESTMENT LIMITED... ... . .. DEFENDANT RULING MSOFFE, J. A preliminary point of objection has been taken at the instance of the defendant that the suit is not maintainable for want of joinder of a necessary party i.e. The Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC). It is the defendant's contention that in exercise of powers conferred upon him under the -relevant provisions of Act 16/93 the Minister responsible has since declared the defendant a specified Corporation. Hence, according to the defendant, in the absence of the necessary leave under S.9 (1) of Cap 25 the suit is not maintainable. In a brief submission by Mr. Kamara learned advocate for the plaintiff, he has mainly urged tha~ the defendant has not mentioned any instrument that declared the defendant a specified authority. In other words, that the defendant has not mentioned, let alone produce, any government Notice to that effect. ♦ . In an order given by this court! on 8/4/2003 the d,efendant was to file a rejoinder, if any, by 22/4/2003. [ Todate none wa~ filed and hence the decision to proceed without the said rejoinder. If one had been filed it would . I be of interest to see how the defendant would have ~esponded to the point mentioned above by Mr. Kamara. I There is a very useful principle, in law that he who asserts a fact has to I prove it. In this case, the defendant's contention, as earlier stated, is that I ' the Company is a specified Corporation. Yet no GN w~s cited or produced to , I confirm the alleged fact. In go along with Mr. Kamara that the preliminary point of objection is unsubstantiated. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. 1 J. H·. MSOFFE I JUDGE 1817/2003 I I ' I th Delivered this 18 day of July, 2h03 in the presenc~ of Mr. Kamara for the ' plaintiff and in the absence of the respondent who was duly served. 1 J. H. MSOFFE j JUDGE 1817/2003 ' I f.1 I hereby certify this to be a true Copy of the Original. I . this to be . l here bJ cert1f)' . -... ~\ ;.:)Y. ~f th~~~' : atrucC~~ Ag. DISTRICT REGISTRAlf\5i;t;i~t Regi5lra;, ,,,If" AR.USHA 1 • ~b,a,,>··