20130918 TZHC Mwanza

' 1. if IN THE HIGH COURT OF TAfllZANIA LABOUR DIVISION I ATMWANZA EXECUTION N0.38 OF 2013 MAMLAKA YA MAJI SAFI NA MAJI TAKA MWANZA ............ APPLICANT (JUDGMENT DEBTOR) i VERSUS ; !' 1.JOSEPH WALLANCE 2.JASSON WAMBELE 3.RAPHAEL SHilINGO ......................... RESPONDENTS (DECREE HOLDERS) i i RULING S. A. N. Wambura, J. This ruling was supposed to be in respect of an application filed by the applicants Mwanza Urban Water And Sewarage Authority purportedly I brought under a certificate! of urgency, praying to stay the execution of the warrant of attachment of a motor vehicle with registration No. SU 39905 Toyota Land Cruiser, GX GS issued by this Court on 6/9/2013. It has been alleged that to date the said warrant of attachment has however not been executed. I ' ! i Now while going through the court records in the process of writing this ruling. I have noted that the Court has not been properly moved to 1 I ! i' I. r \.. hear the application in that the applicant has not cited the provisions which move this court to hear the I matter under a certificate of urgency. i I. : This defect cannot be said to be a minor omission as it is that provision which mandates this court to adjudicate over the same urgently. It has been held in a number of cases that non-citation and or wrong citation of any enabling provision renders the proceedings incompetent. I • This has been so held in the case of Edward Bachwa & Three others V The Attorney General Civil Application No 128 of 2008, Fabian . Akonaay V Mathias Dawite Civil Application No 11 of 2003. Harish Jina V U.A.J. Suleiman, Civil Application_ No 2 of 2003 and China Henan International Co-operation Group V Salvand K. A Rwegasira, Civil ! Application No 22 of 2005i to mention just a few. In the case of City Bank Tanzania Limited Vs Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited and 4 Others Civil Application No 64 of 200), the court stated in part.that " .... admittec{IJ1 the aJ?plicant cited section 4 of the Act which is a provision which vests in the Court, inter alia/ with powers to exercise ·revisional Jurisdiction. The applicant however did not go far enough and Mention the specific subsection that was applicable... ,✓ Now if an omission to cite the proper subsection rendered the said .I . application to be in'competent, the effect of non citation of t~e said provision would be expected to unbearable. 2• I It is for this reason that I have found myself -unable to proceed issuing the expected ruling as the apl:)lication was incompetently before I . I this court., ' !· Since the only remedy for filing an incompetent application is to strike out such an application, I accordingly proceed to do so. This application which has been filed under a certificate bf urgency is struck out of the court register for reasons stated above. Appli_cants can however i . ! i ' ' . refile the same if they still wish to persue the same. i I, I ! !' 3