19990730 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's order to furnish particulars and filed an amended plaint without leave; therefore, the suit is dismissed in its entirety with costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19990730 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Flavian Mgori on behalf of 127 Others; Defendant: National Urban Water Authority
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Non Compliance With Court Orders, Amendment of Pleadings, Dismissal 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
Flavian Mgori on behalf of 127 Others
Plaintiff
National Urban Water Authority
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order to furnish particulars
- 2 Whether the amended plaint should be struck out for being filed without leave of the court
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs failed to comply with the court's order to furnish particulars and filed an amended plaint without leave; therefore, the suit is dismissed in its entirety with costs.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed with costs
Orders
- Suit dismissed in its entirety with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
r. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE N0.197 OF 1994 . FLAVIAllJ MGORI · on behalf. of 127 OTHERS•••••••••••••·•••• PLAINI'IFF VERSUS NATIONAL URBAN WATER AUTHORITY •••••• DEFEWJ\NT RUN ING ~UBESHI,J: On 13/7/98, this court allowed an application filed by the defendants that t.lle plaintiffs furnish further and better particuJ.ars, to enable the defendants to file their written-statement of defence. The plaintiff~ through the.1.r··coiinsel Mr. Lutema, had requested for 30 days within which to furnish those particulars. Instead of so providing the particulars as ordered, the plaintiff, on 8/9/98, and without leave of the court, filed ant. amended.plaint. The defendant have therefore taken objection on the two issues above. The defendants co~end that as the plaintiffs have failed ta comply with the court- order,the filed plaint is .not in compliance with Order VII Rule 4, the suit be dismissed. And because the amended plaint was filed without leave of the court, it be struck out for being filed contrary to Order VI Rule 17. Without belabouring much on the points raised,I think I am inclined to agree with the submissions ·made by the counsel t the defendant. In any case the plaintiffs were to have filed their reply qn the preliminary objections by 19/7/99 but to date th.ey have not dor~ so~ In the · premises I have no alternative but to dismiss the suit in its entirety with costs. .., t' i • j (.,. Ii. ril \ . ·. ,.(~-t!<i~. Delivered before 'A. G. BUBESHI Tenga for defendants and iri JJJDGE absence of the plaintiffs • 30/7 /99 . . ...