ebenezer spiritual center vs ibrahim rajabu and others 2020 tzhclandd 75 29 april 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE 133 OF 2018 BETWEEN EBENEZER SPIRITUAL CENTER ..............PLAINTIFF VERSUS IBRAHIM RAJABU ......................................... 1st DEFENDANT HAMIS LEBOI ................................................. 2nd DEFENDANT HAMISI MKOMBWE ........................ ........... 3rd DEFENDANT NEEMA LAZARO ................................. 4th DEFENDANT NAHAMU MTENGELE ...... ........... .................. 5th DEFENDANT ALLY MOHAMED MDUGI ............................... 6™ DEFENDANT MOHAMED MTAMANI ....................................7™ DEFENDANT PAWA ABDALLAH MCHAFU ......................... 8™ DEFENDANT MALEKO NGUMBIRWA....................... ............9™ DEFENDANT MAIGE, J RULING The plaintiff, has, in paragraph 1 of the Plaint, described herself as an institute. She does not state anywhere in the plaint whether she is incorporated and if so, under which law is she incorporated. The name of the person who verified and signed the plaint is not revealed as well. The signatory has just indicated that he was signing for the plaintiff. Therefore, in his written statement of defense, the second defendant has questioned the maintainability of the suit for among others, want of locus standi. He has also doubted it for being resjudicata. On their parts, the fourth and fifth defendants, have, aside from being resjudicata, challenged the suit for want of jurisdiction. On 3rd day of March 2020 when the matter came for disposal of preliminary objections, I directed the parties to argue the same by way of written submissions. The second defendant presented his submissions in his person. For the fourth and fifth defendants, the written submissions were presented for filing by Mr. Victor Ntalula, learned advocate. For the reason better known to herself, the plaintiff did not file any submission. I take it that she has weaved her right to be heard. Since the locus stand of the plaintiff is at issue, it is appropriate to start with such issue first. In his written submissions, I have noticed, the second defendant did not address the said issue. He only addressed the second one. The issue being jurisdictional, this Court is not discharged from its obvious duty of ascertaining its validity. It is talked hereunder As I said above, the plaintiff appears to be an institution. Under which law is it incorporated, the plaint is silent. The person who pleaded and signed it does not disclose his position in the plaintiff. This Court therefore, cannot have factual basis from which to decide whether the plaintiff has the necessary standing to institute these proceedings. As a result, the suit is struck out with costs for being incompetent. It is so ordered. JUDGE 29/04/2020 COURT: Ruling delivered in at thday of April 2020 at 2:30 in Chambers. /T” JUDGE 29/ 04/2020 ORDER: Parties be notified ^ I.MAIGE JUDGE 29/ 04/2020