JOYCE ADRIF

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB - REGISTRY AT DODOMA LAND CASE NO. 40 OF 2023 JOYCE ADRIF MWASONGWE (as administrator of the estate of the late SIMON KITEMA MWAKYAMBIKI)............................................ 1st PLAINTIFF RUKIA MWAKASEPE............................................................. 2nd PLAINTIFF JOHN MWAKABURUFU..........................................................3rd PLAINTIFF JUNES KALENGE....................................................................4™ PLAINTIFF EZEKIEL WILLIAM SIMON (as administrator of estate of the late SIMON CHILONGANI)........................................................ 5™ PLAINTIFF VERSUS CITY COUNCIL OF DODOMA................................................ 1st DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................................................... 2nd DEFENDANT AFRO OIL INVESTMENT LIMITED....................................... 3rd DEFENDANT KLEB COMPANY...................................................................4™ DEFENDANT RULING 24" July, 2024. HASSAN, J.: The Plaintiffs herein filed Land Case No. 40 of 2023 against the Defendants in this court. Plaint and summons were duly served to the l defendants. However, upon replying the plaint lodged, the defendants raised three points of preliminary objection to be determined by the court at the earliest thus: 1. That, the suit is time barred for contravening item 1 and item 24 o f part 1 o f the schedule to the law o f limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E. 2019. 2. That the suit is incompetent for contravening section 6 (2) o f the Government Proceedings Act, [Cap. 5 R.E. 2019]. 3. That, the 1st and 5th plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this suit as per section 107 (1)(2) and section 44 o f the Probate and administration o f estates Act, Cap. 352 R.E2019. Fundamentally, in the preliminary objections, the defendants prayed the court to struck out the suit with costs for being incompetent. At the hearing of the preliminary objections, the plaintiff was represented by learned counsel Mr. Constantino Gwihava Whereas, on the other side, Ms. Kumbukeni Kondo in assistance of Ms. Hellen Njowoka all 2 learned State Attorneys were representing the 1st and 2nd defendants. And, as for the 3rd and 4th defendants were represented by learned counsel Ms. Mary Masumbuko Lamwai. On the first hand, Before the counsel for defendants were invited to canvass for their preliminary objections, the plaintiffs' counsel passionately begged the court to step up first for presentation. Thus, in his submission, Mr. Gwihava readily conceded to all three points of preliminary objection raised by the defendants. Consequently, he prayed the matter to be struck out without costs. Wholeheartedly, counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants readily accepted both admission and the prayer entered by the plaintiffs' counsel except for the order to struck out the suit. Thus, she let the court proceed with delivery of the ruling and pronouncement of the order to dismiss the suit as per the law. To the contrary, things has not been the same for the 3rd and 4th defendants, though learned counsel Ms. Lamwai had kindheartedly sanctioned the admission of preliminary objections entered by the plaintiffs' counsel, she was not equipped to let go of the costs incurred by the 3rd and 3 4th defendants. Therefore, on her brief submission, Ms. Lamwai prayed the court to dismiss the suit and award the costs to the 3rd and 4th defendants who had incurred the same by engaging an advocate from Dar es Salaam. Having gone through the contentious points of objection and by making reference of relevant laws, it is apparent that the suit was instituted in violation of the requirement imposed under item 1 and item 24 of part 1 of the schedule to the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E. 2019 which set forth time limit for institution of suit of this nature. Rejoining on the above argument, the counsel for the plaintiffs concurred with the remedy to dismiss the suit but reiterated on his prayer to relinquish the costs. That said, since plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirement of the Law of limitation as aforementioned, then, the only remedy available is to dismiss the suit for being incompetently filed. And thus, since this ground alone can suffice to dismiss the suit, I see no precious need to go in detail with the remaining points. In fact, since the plaintiffs' counsel had accepted their faults, then, it is all over, because the defects found thereof are fatal and have rendered 4 the present suit hopeless. That being the case, in terms of section 3 (1) of the LLA I dismiss the suit. Consequently, I award the costs for the 3rd and 4th defendants alone. Ordered accordingly. DATED at DODOMA this 22nd day of July, 2024. This ruling delivered this 22nd day of July, 2024 in the presence of the parties and the matter is dismissed with costs. 5