HAGAI LALTAIKA SAFII

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

LAND DIVISION

AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC.LAND APPLICATION NO. 8277 OF 2024 HAGAI SIMON CHELELE.................................................................... APPLICANT

VERSUS DEPOSIT INSURANCE BOARD.................................................... 1STRESPONDENT MORINGE GROUP.........................................................................2ndRESPONDENT TAMBAZA AUCTION MART AND BROKERS................................ 3rdRESPONDENT BANK OF TANZANIA.................................................................... 4THRESP0NDENT DAUDA WA DAUDA...................................................................5THRESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................................................... 6THRESPONDENT SOLICITOR GENERAL............................................................... 7th RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last Order: 02/09/2024 Date of Ruling: 02/09/2024 LALTAIKA, J The Applicant herein HAGAI SIMON CHELELE filed this application, accompanied with a certificate of urgency, under section 2(2), 2(3) and section 5 of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act (Cap 358 R.E. Page 1 of 3 2019) and section 68 (e) and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33 R.E. 2019) among other laws. According to the Chamber Summons supported by an affidavit deponed the said Applicant HAGAI SIMON CHELELE, the prayers sought are as follows: 1. Interim Order pending the lapse of 90 days'notice of an intention to sue.

2. That the cost of this application.

3. Any other and further relief this Honourable Court may deem to fit andjust to grant. Initially, the Application was vehemently objected by the Respondents on the reason that the same is res judicata. However, when the application was called on for mention today, it turned out that the same has been overtaken by events. Ms. Jesca Shengena, Principal State Attorney and Mr. Edson Albert, learned Advocate addressed me in turn as follows. Ms. Shengena: My lord the matter was scheduled for hearing of a PO we raised. However, we are no longer interested with the PO because the same is overtaken by events. The matter was for an injunction pending expiration of the 90-days notice. The days have lapsed. We pray that the application is dismissed with cost. Mr. Albert: My lord that is the position. The PO was that the matter was incompetent and res judicata. We concede with the dismissal. As for the cost, we pray that the same is not issued as the main case that is Land Case No 17551 of2024 which is before His Lordship Gwae J. Ms. Shengena: My lord, in essence, the court has no jurisdiction. Counsel was not supposed to say he concedes. The PO is not there either. Page 2 of 3 In the upshot, I agree with the learned Principal State Attorney Ms. Shengena that this application is incompetent and amenable for dismissal forthwith. It is so ordered. E. I. LA LTAI KA

JUDGE 02/09/2024 Court Ruling delivered 2nd day of September 2024 in the presence of Ms. Jesca Shengena, Principal State Attorney for the 6th and 7th Respondents and Mr. Edson Albert, learned Advocate for the Applicant. J/ JUDGE # 02/09/2024 Page 3 of 3