19921124 TZHC Dar es Salaam

\ IH T:-~E ]:-:IC-:.·= Cc·0-.:-:'l' o::.i' TAiTZAiTIA 1· " ' DL ·, . ,,.... ,..,J; - AA- . ..;!.L.:..:::.:. _.0_:->__ ~-•-:::::.._____t._ CIVIL CJ.SZ lTG. 212 OF 1992 FA:1J.v.J..,Ai8S TAITZAITIA LT:J e , .... , •••••••.• , • , PL.A IIT'I'IFF _____ R U L ....... I IT G ~ This is an apl?licatio:1 :for o:.."'c.e:rio that the respondent/ defendant be restrained by a tir-:ely injunction fror.i further tar_1pering and/or ·trespasoing into :luc.eua Estates, Ltd., the property of the Applicant/plaintif~ and for costs to be provided :for. The application is Gt:pyortec1 by the affidavit of Cb.r-.rsaritthus ~eatus iTyoka, Cor:1:.x1ny Secretary for the applicant. Nr. Hgasala, learned counsel for t:"J.e applicant stated that the ap:9lica.nt according to t~:e agree:·.1ent wa::; supposed to pay 10,000,000/- ao initial payi:.1ent anc t,.:er~ ::;hares would be transf'erred to the a:pplic2-nt. SI1areG of Luc:eun Estates Ltd w.ere actually transferred after the ini tio.2. ~.?2.yr:1ent 1-12..s made and the applicant -book physical possescion and occL1::n::tic1: of' tl-ie Estates• The respondent □ade available a regiot0r of fixed assets of Ludewa Sis.al Esta-tea which the- D.;?:?licant initialled to show that the property now was o:f' the a:)~_Jlica:-it. "i'Then the regi::;ter came back · .:frora the respondent in 'l'a:nga it ::c.d so::10 rer.1arkG ::showing that the assets on the Estateo were ,:iere cc:r-ap. 1-'Ir, Ngassala argued that the iter.1s r.1arked e.a scrap in the <:lGset::; register were aotually not sorap .as t~ey were considered in the sale agree□ent and they eould :fetch shs. 20,000,000/- if' sold, 1''.ir. 1-Jgassala also submitted that the applicant l-:ad 00011 given 6 title deeds two of whioli had expired in 1905 ar.c 1S75 res~ectively •. He said that the expiry of' the title_ de.eds 1:ie~nt th.ut the land co□p;c-ised in i,hose titles had reverted to t;:10 ?residep.t. He subnitted that this 1ms a proble □ to be ·settlec before further payment of the : ' balance of shs 54,ooo,ooo/- in t~e agreenent. But before this oould be solved the responclenJ,;o ca::10 on the land and evicted the applicant and i:legan hal"V'IJsting t~1e oropo on the land• Mr, N'gassala submitted tho t the propria. tar-,1 rights· over the land have already passed to the applicant after payr.1ent of the initial araount and aeoorcling to the oale asreer:lcmt. .He wao there;f'ore pI:'ay.i..ng :f'or the order .in the cha □ber sur.1oona. 2 In rei)ly, Er. Ia;:alclo, l0c:.r:.1cd counsel for the respondent su0mittcd that ~o injunction s~ould isouo becauoe the applicant had not fully co~?lie~ wit~ t~s ter□G of the contract.· He arg1,1ed f'urthor that the pplicc:i~1t wao required to transfer pert of hio shares to the dc:.:'0;:~da:;.1t but that this had not been done. Se argued thnt t:i.:e injunction ·would. distur".:> the status qu? obtaining nm·Tc !~s for tl:e e.;cpir2c1 title deeclo, Mr. Kalolo submitted that t:1.0y wore still Y::tlid and tI:nt in any case the a::_:,plicant had not b::•oygllxt Guch pr.oblems to the attention of the respondent o :-Io oubmi tteC: :C:.:i·ther that the re-entry into t:"le estate WclS juotified bec 2 use thG Sai-:10 ·was still the property of' the res:_)ondent, He argued :further tb.at this was a joint venture and ·tl:at there wa.s no question of exclusive ownershipo He argued that since there io a joint venture and since the applicant has not played its ?art in full, it cannot be allowed to benefit fror:1 its r.iisdeeda, and. t::at the i~espondent has the right to rescind the contract. He concluded that in the event that injunction was granted? the ap?licant should be required to deposit shs 54 million in court, In a furtb.er reply, . Hr lTgassala argued that there ,was ... no joint venture as the applicant 1'Tas to j_X-1rchaoe the whole estate and th.Gn transfer 20% of the shareo to t~e respondentc He said that since tne respond0nt is not on t~c ~otato an order of injunction would not disturb it a He cone luded that t!'!ere wa c no ti1:1e li □i t for the payoent of the shs., .5L~ 1:1illion, The conditions t..:;_~on which n te:·.1;:orary injunction should be granted ·are spelled out in tl:0 case of L:.:tti).io y l/fbowe_[f9!i,§} ECD 234. · Eowever in thic c 2_q e 1 ,·rhc1 t is being aoked is not really an injunction but an eviction o~ t~0 res~ondent who is on the suit , prer.uses because the resi:,oric.~ent io on the disputed prer.iises (suit prer.iises) na1:1ely tl:e Lt.1cle1-1c:. Gisal ~st2. te· h::iving evicted the applicant fro □ thereo Tho phraseology uned in the Chamber Su1:imons is as :follows: itThe respondcmt/D0f'end<=lnt be restrained by a . tir.1ely injunction of this Honoura0le Court fro□ further ta~p~ring and/or t:r:-es:_'.)assing into Rudewa Estates Ltd$••" In view of the fact tha·I; the c.;_ue::;tion of ownership of the Zstates is in issue between t~e parties and in view of the :fact that the respondent in sniG to b0 harvesting the crops in the Zstates, i t is fair and juot that the respondent .should be restrained :fror.1 :further t~r-1pering wi t11 the crops in the Estates until the conclusion of t:10 :::a:.n suit. TIJ.is is in line with the prev:i.s~ons of Order JG80./'II Rule~ of the C?Ce I a□ satisfied i;hat tho a::::i::_Jlicant hao ::?rovoC::. t!-:nt t:.:orc in nlionation of the oro::.x, L- 3 I order that £1 t0i:1po:i'.'a:ry in.:;ui:ction to reoi--rain such alienation and 1-raote ioouo e..;o.ir:ot t~~(, ::..... oo~::o:,.de1:t. Tiie a:;;>p1icati.on is t.h.erat'Q.i.~ 13rD11tod with coo·:-;..J. w.s.d. by 22/12/92 1-ien-cio;:: on . . •·· .... 2l.;..11.92 • • 1