20151222 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVISION NO. 41 OF 2013 Original Civil Case No 140 of 2011 of Ila/a District Court KAMATI YA MUDA YA SOKO LA ILALA ... APPLICANT v. MUUNGANO WA MASOKO WA MKOA (MUWADA) ........................ RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order :............... 20/12/2015 Date of Ruling :.; ............. 22/12/2015 Shangwa, J. This is an application for revision of the Ruling of the , District Court of Ilala delivered by Luhwago, RM in Civil 1 ' • Case No. 140 of 2011. In his decision, Luhwago RM upheld the Respondent's ( defendant's) preliminary objection that the Applicant (plaintiff) has no locus standi to file a suit against the defendant/Respondent. The following is what Luhwago, RM decided and I quote: 11 The plaintiff in this matter has no locus standi as the leadership of Ila/a Market and the said Ila/a interim committee in law was required to last for only three months from the 2Z'd of October, 2007." In their written submissions, counsel for the Respondent prayed this court to dismiss this application for being Vexatious and devoid of any merit. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the application has merit. 2 That it is supported by affidavit which he prayed this court to adopt as part of his submission. At page one of his written submissions, counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is a glaring irregularity in the Ruling and drawn order of Luhwago, RM. He pointed out that in his Ruling, Luhwago, RM upheld the objection that the Applicant has no locus standi without showing as to whether the suit was dismissed or struck out. Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Applicant being composed of Market Traders ought to have been seen to have sufficient interest in the suit. That the issue whether the Applicant's period of office has come to an end is a question to be addressed at the hearing. That Luhwago, RM entertained evidence in a preliminary objection. That in the main suit, the Applicant 3 is challenging the manner as well as the power of the organ disbanding it. In my considered opinion, this application is neither vexatious nor frivolous. It has merit. I have looked at the Ruling in issue and I agree vyith counsel for the Applicant that it is not indicated therein as to whether after upholding the defendant/Respondent's preliminary . objection that the Applicant have no locus standi, Luhwago, RM dismissed the suit or struck it out. He concluded his Ruling as follows and I quote: 11 /n the event, the preliminary objection is upheld. I make no order as to costs. " 4 ., I agree with counsel for the Applicant that Luhwago's omission to indicate in his Ruling as to whether the suit was struck out or dismissed is an irregularity. Also, I agree with counsel for the Applicant that there is something wrong in Luhwago's Ruling in upholding the Respondent's objection that the Applicant has no locus standi on grounds that the Applicant's tenure of office had come to an end. In my view, the Applicant has a locus standi to sue the Respondent/defendant even if its tenure of office has come to an end. It is quite clear that the Applicant had an interest in the case irrespective of whether the term of office of its members had come to an end. 5 •• Moreover, in the main suit, the Applicant committee is challenging the manner it was disbanded and questioning the Respondent's authority to disband it. How then can it be said that the Applicant has no locus standi ! For these reasons, I allow this application and order that the suit between the parties namely Civil Case No. 140 of 2011 at Ilala District Court should proceed to hearing from the stage where it had reached and be heard by another Magistrate with competent jurisdiction. It is so ordered. A. Shangwa JUDGE 22/12/2015 6 1---->~-,~~~~-·---·-··-····---·---. -. I ,. Delivered in open court this 22~_d .day oJ _December, 2015 ~-_in_the_presence of Mr. Juma Kuyoka for A_12_12lic9 nt and Mr. - - Anicet Mlay for Respondent. 7 - .