NA TZHC Dar es Salaam2 3

~ ' IN THE l:rmmH COURT OF TANZANIA I - il.T DAR ES SAIMM. CIVIL CJ\SE NOo 169 OF 1995 IDRISA SALUM a o o o ••••••••••• ,. • • PLUNTIFF VERSUS . • THE TANBANIA INVESTMENT Bfu"ij( (TIB) & 2,0THERSeoooaoooooo•ooooooooDEFENDANTo . JlULING. J3UBESHI , , Jo In caurse of hearing tl'iis D.1it!f, the defendant$ through their counsel Mr. Marandu learnec. advocate raised two pr.eliminary objection. First he argued t:hat the p!aintiffs as were _workers had no v0sted interest in DAWICO I as they were naithc':!'.r shareholders nor }:'.ll.rt of the management. Andi secondl:y, where the ,company is put under receivership by operation of law the IART Conditions, there ~ould be no'such vested interests. That the plaintiff cannot challenge the unlawfulness of the U\RT enactment through ordinary sui~. Also that any cor:~plaintis must be channelled thnough the LART Tribunal or at the Arb.itration Tribunal. Mr. Marando was of the view thnt there is nc cause of action disclosed and the suit misconce~ved. I, . Mr. El Ma~nry learned counsel for the plaintiffs did not agree. He • argned that the plaintiffs,as workers of DAWICO1 h~ve,interests of contractual: nature. That the methodology adopted by t_he receiver manager old not take into account the .• interests of the plaintiffs Mro El Maamry main argu.~ent , is that his cl-ient ••s· rights are not been taken into account by the receiver/ managero And on jurisdiction, they eontend that they. have opted to come to this court as they foel such matters are within the j*risdiction of this court tooo Counsel El Maamry was mindful to pray that/shouldthi& court orcfer the transfer of the suit to the LA.RT Tribubal, then this court order that t·he applicants be exempted from payment of fees on acc,ount of poverty• Having heard subr,1issions fvom counsel, the main p~int for determination basically is/one, namely whether this suit be heard by this court or the IA.RT TRIBUNAL. 1 ]tis not in dispute that Dowico is one of the public institutions • ' declared to be a non performing assets, GN 707/91 publfshed ·on 1st Octob_er, • 1993, lists Dodoma Wine Company, commonly knm-m as DOWig) as one of those non pdrfor-ni:ng assets transferred to the Loans and Advances Realisation Trust -. \,I Car.manly known as IART 9 Again it is not in ~ispute that LART appointed a Recei vq;r- VianaGer to conduct receivership of that co□pany o \fuo.t then are the powers of LA_RT 0 Section 15 (1) of Act 6 of 1991-the Laons and Advances Reali- sation Trust, is relevant and it provides that: n All assets, rights and obligations attached to a non perforr.1ing asset transferred by a bank or other financial institution under this Act which ir:n:1ediately before the date of the transfer were held by the bank shall ----------nest in the Trust 1'1 and Secticn 19 (1) provides further that: 11 The Tribubal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and deterr.1ine all 1Jatte:rs arising under this Act or relating to any ncm_ - perforcing asset 'fransfcrred to the Trust under this Act 1' ( eElphasis providect) (2) The Tribunal shall in the exercise of its jurisdiction------ have all the powers of the High Court,,---------~' The decisions of the Tribunal are not final, whichever party that is aggrieved has a right of appeal to th 0 court of1Appeal in accordance with the ar.1end.r.1ent provided by Act 5 of 19q50 The plaintiffs in this suit have, in terns ,of paragraph 11 of the plaint (a) to (1) t averred that their rights listed in subparagraph/ . have to be guaranteed before the conpany is sold off. The plaintiffs have further corJplained that ) their records of service range fvn□ three to twenty - seven yem-s .Mm that they are not prepared to see thair cor.ipany for which they have toiled being sold while their rights arising frorJ ei:1ploy1Jent are lost in obl:hriono I agree en~irely with the plaintiffs that they have vested interest in DOWICO and that their concern is genuine. However I an inclined to agree with the defendants that the plaintiffs cor::iplaints would be best handled by the I.ART TRIBUNAL in view of the fact that DOWICO as a non pcrf orr:iing assets has been transferred to IART. All the reliefs being prayed for fall within the jurisdiction of the La.rt Tribunal and in event the plaintiffs are not satisfied, they can appeal to the c.,urt of Appealo In the pre1:iises I agree with the defendants that the plaintiff file their clair:1 with the LA.RI' TRIBIB~ALo