Misc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR-ES-SALAAM MSC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 11275 OF 2024 ELIAS SYDNEY SIMPEMBA........................................................... 1stAPPLICANT TITO PANCO BUGIGO.................................................................. 2ndAPPLICANT BAKAMU BAKANGANA.................................................................. 3rdAPPLICANT SIMON EVARIST NTOBBI............................................................ 4thAPPLICANT EMANUEL ADRIAN MNYONE........................................................ 5thAPPLICANT DENNIS MWANUKUZI BEKA......................................................... 6thAPPLICANT MUSSA ABDALLAH RASHID......................................................... 7thAPPLICANT ALLY MBARAKA MNYAMISI.......................................................... 8thAPPLICANT GUALBERT DEUSDEDIT MAKIRE................................................. 9thAPPLICANT HARIETH KAICHE MHADU......................................................... 10thAPPLICANT PIUS ERNEST WASURWA........................................................... 11™APPLICANT KESSY MKONGO MWINGIRA...................................................... 12™APPLICANT GAUDECIA DAVID MSIGWA....................................................... 13™APPLICANT OMARI M. KITUNDU.................................................................. 14™APPLICANT MANENO SANGARA.................................................................... 15™APPLICANT SIRAJU MOHAMMED.................................................................. 16™APPLICANT ALFAYO JOHN LERIA.................................................................. 17™APPLICANT EMMANUEL MANJORO............................................................... 18™APPLICANT DICKSON DAVID BUNDI............................................................ 19™APPLICANT MIKAELLI ELINIHAKI MFAVANGAVO......................................... 20™APPLICANT ABUBAKARI SALIM AMON.......................................................... 21stAPPLICANT Page 1 of 7 MARKO MAKOLO JILALA............................................................ 22ndAPPLICANT MKULILWA SIMKANGA............................................................. 23RDAPPLICANT PRISCA SEVERINI..................................................................... 24THAPPLICANT SAIDI ABILAH CHIKUYU............................................................ 25™APPLICANT JACKIRIN GODFUREY MANGOWI.............................................. 26™APPLICANT PHILIPO S. MUHUYEMBA........................................................... 27™APPLICANT DEOGRATIUS PETER PETER...................................................... 28™APPLICANT EMANUEL TUMAINI KIDEBWANA...............................................29™APPLICANT CHARLES CLAN MASANJA.......................................................... 30™APPLICANT EDWIN MUNGONGO................................................................... 31stAPPLICANT PATRICIAL MUNGONGO............................................................ 32ndAPPLICANT NARCIA NYONI........................................................................... 33rdAPPLICANT MIZA RUREKA............................................................................. 34™APPLICANT HALIMA HAMIS MOHAMED........................................................ 35™APPLICANT VERSUS KIBAHA DISTRICT COUNCIL.................................1st RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................... 2nd RESPONDENT THE COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS........................ 3rd RESPONDENT REGISTRAR OF TITLES......................................... 4™ RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 10/09/2024 Date of Ruling: 10/09/2024 LALTAIKA, J. The above-named Applicants made this application under section 2(3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act (Cap 358 R.E. 2019) and Page 2 of 7 section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33 R.E. 2019). In the Chamber Summons supported by an affidavit deponed by the 1st Applicant, they prayed for the Orders that Ex-parte (1) This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order for maintenance of status quo against the 1st Respondent restraining her, her agents, workmen, assignees and/or any person working under her instructions from executing her intentions to evict and demolish the Applicant's buildings, crops and various projects built within the suit land pending inter-partes hearing of this chamber application. (2) This Honourable Court be pleased to dispense with the mandatory requirement of the issuance of the 90 days' notice to the government pending the determination of the present application. INTER-PARTIES (1) This Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order for maintenance of status quo against the 1st Respondent restraining her, her agents, workmen, assignees and/or any person working under her instructions from executing her intention to evict and demolish the Applicants' buildings, crops and various projects built within the suit land pending the maturity and/or expiration of the ninety Page 3 of 7 (9) days statutory notice served upon the above-named respondents for an institution of the main suit. (2) This honourable court be pleased to dispense with the mandatory requirement of the issuance of the 90 days' notice to the government pending the determination of the present application. (3) Any other order and relief (s) this Honourable Court may deem fit andjust to grant. (4) Cost of this application be provided for. When the application was called on for hearing on the 10th day of September 2024, the Applicants appeared through Mr. Shukuru Rajabu, learned Advocate holding brief for Mr. Tumaini Mngonja, learned Advocate. The Respondents, on the other hand, appeared through Ms. Mariam Matovolwa, Yasmin Makanya and Fatuma Rusimba, learned State Attorneys. Ms. Mtovolwa informed the court that the application had been scheduled for hearing. However, she noted that the matter had been overtaken by events, as the application was for a Mareva injunction pending the expiration of a 90-day notice. She explained that the application was filed on the 17th of May and served on the 7th of June, and by now, the time had already lapsed. Page 4 of 7 Mr. Rajabu, learned counsel, concurred, confirming that the 90-day notice had expired on the 7th of September, and stated that they had no objection to withdrawing the application. Having carefully considered the submissions from both learned Counsels representing the parties, it is evident that the essence of the present application was to seek an order for the maintenance of the status quo pending the expiration of the statutory 90-day notice. The notice period was central to the reliefs sought by the Applicants, particularly in relation to preventing the 1st Respondent and her agents from evicting the Applicants or demolishing the developments on the suit land. However, the 90-day notice has now expired, effectively rendering the purpose of the application moot. The court acknowledges that the statutory notice, issued in compliance with legal requirements, was set to expire on the 7th of September 2024. According to the submissions of Ms. Matovolwa, learned State Attorney, and confirmed by Mr. Rajabu, learned counsel for the Applicants, the time frame within which the notice operated has fully lapsed. As such, the relief sought by the Applicants for interim orders pending the expiration of the notice is no longer necessary. The subject matter of the application has Page 5 of 7 effectively been overtaken by events, leaving no substantive issues for the court to resolve in relation to the requested injunctive relief. It is an established principle of law that courts should not engage in adjudicating matters that have become purely academic or hypothetical. Judicial intervention is only warranted where there is a live dispute or controversy requiring resolution. In the present circumstances, since the 90-day notice has expired, the protective measures sought under the Mareva injunction no longer serve a practical purpose. In light of the above and given that both parties have expressed their agreement that the application is no longer necessary, I find it appropriate to allow the withdrawal of the application. The court commends the parties for their cooperation and concurrence on the matter, which has saved judicial time and resources. Consequently, the application is hereby marked as withdrawn for having been overtaken by events. I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Egt. LALTAIKA JS JUDGE 7X0/09/2024 Page 6 of 7 Court: Ruling delivered this 12th day of September 2024 in the presence of Mariam Matovolwa, Yasmin Makanya and Fatuma Rusimba, learned State Attorneys for the Respondents and Mr. Shukuru Rajabu, learned Advocate holding brief for Mr. Tumaini Mngonja, learned Advocate for the Respondents. JUDGE 10/09/2024 Page 7 of 7