DC

© THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OFT ANZANIA AT KIGOMA D.C CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2023 JEREMIA CHARLES KAfAGAMBE COMPLAINANT/ APPELLANT/ APPLICANT/ PLAINTIFF VERSUS DWT SACCOS KASULUI& 2 OTHERS······························ RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT JUDGMENT A. K. RWIZILE, J, This appeal emanates from a ruling on the preliminary objection raised at the District Court of Kasulu in Civil appeal No. I of2023 dated 8th Sepjember 2023. It has been gathered from the records that parties to this case were in a contractual relationship. The ellant, a member of the 1st respondent, was advanced with a loan of TZS 6,000,000.00 on 17th Janua 18 to repay in one year with interest and penalty in case of default. The appellant defaulted payment. Before execution, he successfully obtained an extension of time to pay. But when time extended was yet to elapse, the 1st respondent hired a court broker, 2nd respondent who sold the appellant's two milling machines to recover the loan amount and other charges that had accrued. The appellant was not happy with ~he process. He filed an action before the District Court of Kasulu styled as Civil case No. 2 of 2021. On 13th October 2021, he obtained a decree for payment of damages for unlawful selling of his properties. The district court fou~d that the respondents did not follow the law in auctioning the same and was ordered to pay an amount ofTZS ~0,000,000.00 as general damages. This however did not please himlbecause the court did not nullify the sale and his efforts to deal with the same failed. In 2023, he filed a fresh c case No. 1 of 2023 at Kasulu district court asking for a declaration that 1 the sale of the two milling machines was unlawful and illegal and therefore be paid the sum ofTZS 36,828,800.00 for the said machines, its opera,ing devices worth TZS 14,000,000.00, the amount of TZS 25,828,800.00 for damage caused and general damages in the tune of TZS 20,000,000.00 or any other sum to be assessed by the court, with interest and cost of th, suit. The case was dismissed after sustaining the respondents' preliminary objection that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute because the I st respondent is a cooperative society with its internal mechanism of dispute settlement. The appell nt was aggrieved, hence this appeal with the following grounds of appeal; - Page. I a d d e d , h a d to no t e x h a u s te d re m e d il s av a ilab le b e fo r e r e s o rt ing to ju d ic ia l p ro ce s s . T h is c ou rt w a s th e r e fo r e a s k e d , to d is m is s th is a pp e al. F ro m th e p ar ti e s ' su b m iss io n s , it is a s cl ea r a s c ry s ta l th a t th e a p p e ll a n t h a s tw o c a s e s b e for e th is c ou rt, in th e s a m e w ay , h e d id , b e fo r e th e d is tric t c o h a v e s ho w n , in m y in tro du cto ry s p e ec h th a t th e tw o c a s e s w e re C iv il C a s e N o . 0 1 O f 2 0 2 3 a n d C iv il A pp ea l N o . 6 o f 2 0 23 . Th e s a m e o r ig in ate fr o m fa c ts th at p a v e d th e w a y to C iv il C a s e N o.7 o f 20 2 2 fi le d b e fo r e th e P r im ary C o u rt o f K as u lu . It is p la in th at th e a p p e ll a n t w a s a dv a n ce d w ith th e lo a n . F a ilur e to p a y th e s a m e , th e r e s p o nd e n ts e x e r c is e d th e ir rig h t to s e ll th e se c u r ity a tt ac h e d to th e lo a n . M y d et er m i n a t i o n i n b o t h c a s e s c o t b e d iffe r e n t. T h is is b e c a u s e , th e la w gov e rn in g m ec h a n is m s o f d is p u te s e tt le m e n t b e tw ee n th e tw o p a r tie s , is Re gu la tio n 83 ( 2 ) and (3 ) o f th e C o o p e ra tiv e S o c ie tie s Re gula tion s , 2 0 15 w h ic h s ta te th at: - (]) Any dispute concerning the business of a cooperative society between members of the society or persons claiming through them or betwee member or persons so claiming and the Board or any officer, or between one cooperative society and another s~all be settled amicably through negotiation or reconciliation. (2) Where the dispute under sub-regulation (]) is not amicably settled within thirty days pursuant to sub regulation (]), such dispute shall be r~ferred to the Registrar for arbitration through form No. 13 appearing under the first schedule to these regulations." I have no doubt, this is the position of the law and therefore the trial court rightly found, it had no jurisdiction. Based on the finding, it is enough to disposal of the appeal without resorting to other grounds of appeal. To that end, I find the appeal with no merit. It is dismissed with costs. Dated at KIGOMA ZONE this 10th of September 2024. A . K. RWIZILE, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 3