kello rashid karadenga vs association of tanzania tobacco traders ltd and 4 others 2020 tzhc 1606 30 july 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF SHINYANGA AT SHINYANGA CIVIL CASE NO. 05 OF 2019 KELLO RASHID KARADENGA......................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS THE ASSOCIATION OF TANZANIA TOBACCO TRADERS LTD...1ST RESPONDENT THE TANZANIA LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED.............. 2nd RESPONDENT THE TANZANIA TOBACCO PROCESSORS LIMITED................. 3rd RESPONDENT THE OFFICER COMMANDING DISTRICT (OCD)-KAHAMA..... 4™ RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (AG)................................................5™ REPONDENT Date of Last Order: 02/ 06/2020 Date of Ruling: 30/07/2020 RULING C. P. MKEHA. J On 29/07/2019 the plaintiff presented a plaint before the court claiming as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants general damages to the tune of TZS. 500,000,000/= resulting from ribel and false imprisonment. The plaintiff also claims TZS. 100,000,000/= from the 4th and 5th defendants being compensatory damages as per his own pleadings, resulting from imprisonment. The plaintiff is being represented by Mr. Ndayanse learned advocate. Mr. Kyariga learned advocate represents the 1st to 3rd defendants. Mr. Lwenge learned Senior State Attorney represents the 4th and 5th defendants. l After completion of pleadings, the defendants raised a preliminary point of objection to the effect that, the suit is hopelessly time barred. In their written submissions, through their advocates, the defendants submitted that since the plaintiff's claims are tortious in nature, the same ought to have been instituted in court within three years from when the events complained of happened. Item 6 of Part I to the Schedule of the Law of Limitation Act was cited. The plaintiffs reply was that the cause of action arose on 15/11/2017. As such, when the suit was filed in court, it was still within time. There is no denial that the defamation (ribel) complained of is contained in a letter dated ol/10/2010 which named the plaintiff as a thief. See: paragraph 8 of the plaint. The plaintiff alleges in paragraph 9 of the plaint that on 10/11/2010 he was arrested and remanded for six days before being taken to court on 16/11/2010. Upon being taken to court, he was remanded for further 6 days until 22/11/2010 when he was released on bail. See: Paragraph 10 of the plaint. Again, on 10/05/2012, when the prosecution withdrawn charges against the plaintiff, the latter was re-arrested and taken to Kahama Central Police Station. As per the plaintiffs own plaint, those are particulars indicating when the events leading to the cause of action happened. That, it was between 01/10/2010 and 10/05/2012. Neither of the events complained of happened on 15/11/2017 as the plaintiff seem to suggest in his reply. See: Paragraph 15 of the Plaint. Whereas the events leading to this case happened between 01/10/2010 and 10/05/2012, the present suit was instituted in court on 29/07/2019. Being tortious claims, the same ought to have filed in court within three years since when the cause of action arose. It was indeed out of time when the same was brought in court. 2 For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' objection is sustained. The suit stands dismissed with costs for being time barred. 3