LAND MASTERS HOTEL RULING 0001

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (JUDICIARY) THE HIGH COURT (MUSOMA SUB REGISTRY AT MUSOMA) Misc. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20332 OF 2024 (Mareva Injuction) LAND MASTERS HOTEL LIMITED.................................... APPLICANT Versus 1. BUNDA TOWN COUNCIL ................... RESPONDENTS 2. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL I RULING 19.09.2024 & 19.09.2024 Mtulya, J.: The applicant, Land Masters Hotel Limited and Bunda Town Council (the first respondent) had entered into agreement of conservations of Mount Kaswaka located at Bunda Town in Mara Region. The request of conservation was forwarded through applicant's letter dated 14th April 2020 referenced LMH/BTD/01. The request was replied and sealed by the first respondent's letter dated 28th August 2020 referenced HMB/M/70/2/17/32. Subsequent to the conversations and communications between the parties, the applicant alleges to have incurred costs in favor of the conservations of the mount. However, on 16th July 2024, the first respondent had cancelled the agreement and issued a sixty (60) days' notice for the applicant to vacate the mount via letter referenced i HBM/M.70/02/86. The applicant was aggrieved by both the cancellation of the permit and directive to vacate the area hence he instructed Mr. Godfrey Marobhe Muroba, learned counsel to do dual activities, namely: first to issue a ninety (90) days statutory notice of intention to sue the first respondent; and second, lodge the instant application for want of stay of the sixty (60) days' notice pending expiry of ninety (90) days' notice to sue the first respondent. Mr. Muroba was summoned to appear and register relevant materials in favor of the application in this court today morning. In his brief, submission, Mr. Muroba submitted that the applicant was pained by the sixty (60) days' notice issued by the first respondent intending to evict the applicant after he had incurred costs in conserving the mount. According to Mr. Muroba, the applicant intends to sue the first respondent for breach of the agreement, and has already issued a notice to sue the first respondent. In his opinion, he approached this court praying for temporary injunction against the respondents and any other person working under the instruction of the respondents to evict the applicant. In replying the submission of Mr. Muroba, the respondent had brought in this court Mr. Anesius Kamugisha, learned State Attorney. His interpretation on the application was straight forward that this is a Mareva Injunction intending to stay actions of the first respondent 2 pending expiry of the ninety (90) days' notice of intention to sue the first respondent. In his opinion, in a situation like the present one, there is no reason to protest the application and, in any case, just few days have remained for the notice to expiry. I have perused the instant record and found the applicant had prepared a notice of intention to sue the first respondent on 7th August 2024 and had served the respondents and Solicitor General. In the notice the applicant is complaining of costs incurred after agreements with the first respondent, expenditure on the mount, and cancellation of the permit to conserve the mounts which had cause tensions and pains on part of the applicant. Reading the facts registered in the notice and record of the present application, it is obvious that the applicant may have a case as against the respondents. In such circumstances, the applicant's prayers have merit and may be granted. In the final analysis, I am moved to grant the application and hereby order the respondents to restrain themselves or any other person acting in the authority of the respondents, from executing the sixty (60) days' notice or to evict the applicant, pending expiry of the ninety (90) days' notice issued by the applicant as against the respondents. I do so without costs as Mr. Kamugisha acted as an officer of this court in cherishing section 66 of the Advocates Act [Cap. 341 R.E. 2019] and sections 3A (1) and 3B (2) of the Civil 3 Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E. 2019]. Officers of such species cannot be condemned to costs. Judge 19.09.2024 Court: This Ruling was delivered in Chambers under the Seal of this court in the presence of the applicant's learned counsel, Mr. Godfrey Marobhe Muroba and in the presence of the respondents' learned State Attorney, Mr. Anesius Kamugisha. Judge 19.09.2024 4