19940721 TZHC Dar es Salaam

t -:.. ~ ............. . '·•,, GIDRGZ SlUL@WE PLLJNTIFF VERSUZ T.A.Nz..um ITJ.iJ.iiiJj PDPROL:.iIJ.M REFii:~IL'iG. CO. LTD •. , •• • • • •.• o . . . . . . ., • . " • • • • , • ,, •• ,, ,, DEF.Ei.lJD.:Ufl.' Ru L I a Gs CHU.t..,J •• 1 J-,. prelimina.ry objection ha.s been raised to tl1e olcdm filed in this ooul't on the ha.sis that t!l~ matter is r€e-judicata~ , . , lt was contended by counsel for the defend.ants that tb.e u1atter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit was directly and substantially in issue in ~a. Civil Case .1'fo~14/88o From copies of .the ex-parto j ,.,,..·..5... cnt a11.r1 dcnrec :passed in IM. Civil Case i'fo.114/88 it is clear that judgment "i';2.s en,.:;cre::l in the f'ollowing . . tenns " I. ,grant all the prayers pr:.yed in t:10 i::l...int ;.,.,.- the plaintiff"., A copy of tho decree road.as" The applicant plaintiff having filed this suit p:ra;ying for {a) ,';. declaration that he is still an om:ployeo of t:.10 dcfcndant 1 --, (b) The plaintiff should continue to occupy the house at Ka.nazi' Street Kino11doni. (c) Costs \ (d) /my' othbr rolief. Having h\:r,d. tho plaintiff a,o..parte and n<nr tuia auit coming for final disposal bcforo me it is hereby ordorod and decreed. that I am satisfied. that the plaintiff has provocl his case as roqui:rod by lm·To In the circumstances I grant all tho .p~ers pr.cy-od in tho plaint. by t.2~ pltrintif:f"o ,.._ ·. --.\~ .,~~,J--: . -•~·:,..-.--~-,..Iii+--~.... ... l', ..::-- ~. "( ,;, 2 In tho present suit tho plaintiff is qlc;iminc_- SJ.ls., 6, 122 9 402 being arrears of salary and fringe bonofitf.l plus 20 1 000$000 S!lso being general damages. The decision of tho _RI..' s Court in .R.11° Civil CaGe no., 114/88 docs not decide this clci.m. It was cubmi ttcd by counsel for tho dofcnda..11t that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of tho plaint contraYono 0:rdcr VII rule 2 of t;_1e CttP.o. and should therefore be struck off.. It has not, howoYor9 boon r:;;.1ow.1 how order VII rule 2 has boon oontraYonod :i:or tho :rule proscribosz 1t't,n.1oro the plaintiff socks the recovery of mo::1cy1 the plaint shall stcto tho precise a.mount claimed; Provided that whore tho plaintiff sues for : .p::;3;10 profits or for an a.mount which will be found duo to him on te,ki.11.g unsettled accounts bct1-rccn him and tho clcfondant 9 the plaint shall state approximately the amount sued for." In tl:.c proso11t case tho l)laintif:f' has· stated.. t!10 amounts he is olaimin& anc. as to hot-1 ho arrived at those figures it is a matter of dridcnco. .:J.so by pi--ovidinc; further and bettor :pa1Tticullars the defendant will be in a position to know exactly, what is being claimed in teIIDs of salaries and. various typos of fringe bcnofi tao b Finally it was suhlli ttod t'..:.L.~ ~:.1c suit was Dc::.:._'I'o::. by limitation. i· MroSemgalatro for tho plainttff countered tllia o,ir:,urnc;.1t by assorting that this is a suit' bosod on juclcmcnt ~"ld thoroforo . .Yid-~.,: ,306 (c) of the Law of Limitation .:"ct tho ric;J.1t of action ,M}CI'l!.oi 011 the date the judgment was delivered. which in tb.is oa,co was 23/5/89 and under tl10 1st Schedule item 16 of tho Law of Limitation .:~ct the poriog. allowed for such suits is 12 years. I agrco with tho observations of 1-lr., 3c.:rage.la,wo regarding limitation. · it I should :roitorato that for ros judioata to ap1?1Y not only must it be shoi;-r.n that tb.0 matter directly and substantially in is;::ue in the oontanplatod suit is tho same as that .inv::,lvccl in '.'- ·f.:0:::0:or-'.® t_JJ.;Q:fo~ the same parties but it must olso bo shown that suc:1 r:,atter was finally heard and clctonninod by a oorapotcnt •courto In thiG cc-1,so t!1ough it was arguecl that in tho lower court the plaintiff had trio~1 to obtain tho sum of 6 1 122, 402 in the oourso of oxoouting the docroo of tho court there we.a / ....... ,.3 · -~;~· .:.,. . l' / (" if 3 no evidence to show that the issue as to how that sum was arrived at. was heard arn1 finally dete:rminecl bi fore the decree of the court was drawn up. In ID:/ view t:1erefore res judic:1ta is not applicable in this case and for reasons already spollod out the other points raised are rojcctodo The suit shoulcl proceed for tr:i_aJ. but bflforo tho noxt heariTIG date the plaintiff muot amend the plaint so that he indicates oloarly how much he is claiming under the di:f.'.fo:rent Cfltegorios of crnplo;yment rights and fringe benefits. Rv.ling D01i-.,ored in t!10 prosonoo of the plaintiff a:ad. Mro:[liara:nd.o for the defendant. '.~tl!..,~·· L.J »Iii CilUA JUDOS itt11ci1doc1 plaint to bo £1100. 31/10/940 Hoarin0 . of tho main sui 4; • on 25/11/94c: .:.-··