19980529 TZHC Mtwara

I (SC .11••. ,, fj f !'.,.,:.,' .....""' •• '1, . . IN THE HIGH COURT or TANZANIA A,,~ YJJM¼ -~ MISC~US CIVIL CAUSE NO. 1 OF 199? IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ORDERS OF CERTIOP.Aal AND MANDAMUS BETWEEN MEHBOOB Jt MAWJI••••••••••••APPLICANT ,.. ~~ ;I I••. · . ~ ~t ~~~ I • ,\,;' l -.r•·. _, This is an appli~e.tion hS~ affll i.c,1nt ~ q~ MAWJ.I ~ foi- ...:.£ollowi,wr . ~ !ti,ie _o:ru~.. . . . · .. .., ,·'.) . •' '··· ·:~-Air orcta:~ CERTIORARI-~~ ~.thie boo~~~~-~ Md,.Nll\ .. ' . ·~ ··:· an order ol 1>on£isce.tiora....,.,.;w ~ -~~~ Pol:i.o~r- ~ . ,.... , ......,, ... 25,.10.97 in·J'8Spect of ~ .o,w,l i.o~~,.: .mot<lr vehicl~,.a. ~ wi.tlt- .:. :' . registration number...MT. 25~ . . . :~ ··. . · ~\ .,.: . . ~- '.. ... . . . ... • . . _i; '. . -~:.t.~ .··" J· ·;·· .'\·,--. ,, : ' . · .. · :.:·(b) · An order of MANDAMUS c ~ tha said ~oQ,al_ } ? . . c l - ~ w~N),0 s a i d - ~ ~ ~ i c a n t . ~ • · .. ,,.,,, .. It has been ~ade under ·-· s. l(a), Laws Or~c-e Cap 453, and the-.Law ~~-~atal. ;l~c~~ents. an.o.'JitsiaJ.lan00019 •t the Judicature and Applfo.~tion of {', Pro~isions) - ~ (~O(fdm~j-j~ :,~ther -~du.re God&.. 1966 • · · · ·"-···- . . . . .•. ~. . ··f•;,. :,•. -s,-· 9g ~~ . . :-' '•". . . wi~;~ ~·~i, -~-~ ~ · , . . ·..'.·'i ·,, 'I.• I ' • • '. , • • • • , ·· · · · The· applioont \laS J:-epr,~sea.~ ~ 11.t K\J.lnwembe lea.rt1~Jl ~®ate •...:The , ~»ts _.9r•p:7t~ }eeJ'lled Senior ;;.;.;t. ,.,,._ Th~_ h~~~ w~_ c~~(luc~, 1~~.o.f -written submi~~i?~s:• . Mr,;,~ ~~wembe (Adv~c~te} filed his on .t,~th .~ar~: j9~ W? directed.. .'l'he learn:d: Sei'l:ior State At_torney was suppos~dl;~~:fU,e hi; no_:t later than on 28th AJ?r¥,· 1998 •. B~t up ~o the time of w~it.ine/thl.ii i-uling ~n 27th ~ay, 1998 _}?-e h~/not· done \ so nor has he applied f o;; 'e~enaioo of time nor has he· notifieq,.;;,th:e Court • • ' ... ~- ' ': y' ·' ' the reason of his fail~e · tQ:;:file. h,is written submission as direc~·ea.~- But since he had filed a count~r.aff1da~it stating . the reasons "ror ~ ®Pq$~g . . this application, the-Court·will . ,:\•' .... adopt it • It is in the record that' in 1993 one Leonard K.F. Munyuku instituted Trade Dispute No. 20 of 1993 in tbe Industrial Court.at D'Sal.aam against Mtwara Regionai C°"."oper~~ive}lnio~ Judgment was given in his favour in the sum of ·shs. 24,177,591/-. · It ;would.appear that subsequent to that judgment Mtwara Regional Co-operative Union split into two separate ••••/2.••• . ;, . ., . ,· . ~ . .:• . " . . . .!'·,,,• ' ' . ~omou$. ,~ratt.v~.--~j~ri&t 1Jr~~~q !'!~;. M.:t~_~_t1"fr~ (MAMCU LTD), and the o'ther called N;~a Co-operative Union .(~einaft~ to. °Qe referred :-to -as NECU LTD). . . \. . .. ' !?· '_'.'":_;: . ,:" ' , ' - Among the results of the spll}'as th~ division ·of asset~ and liabilities of the fol'lller- Mt}'_l~~--•-pnal 1 Co-,operative Union_ between MAMCU LTD and NElCU ~TD. The lorry4, which is the subject matter of ~ case ~a~ appar~nt1y. g~ven to ~u fi.,P. · · .. . · _ _ 1~t . ·--... _. · Then on '6th Augua.tf 'r99?- an adyertisement app'eare~ in the· UHURU - Ne~spaper of that date procla'.iming jhe sali; o:f. .the said lQl'l7 Beg.· N~ MT 2578, . The sale was to be carr4q/o~t ~,- a·.-p~blic auction :at Mtwa,r~, bi/~ ~~••t ~- ~~- A~:i/,i. ~ s were j~tbi to vie_~--~lre ____ _ -...a moto-.Tt ¥ehicle at the h o ~ ~Juma. Sh.aibu. -" . • • • - · ·,. · . cl : • • ~ ~· • • • !. . - ••~ •••• t . . _:,• ·r.,i:t~t-,: ;·.·.,., ( ·. ~- ' Th~ .ap;pi.icant saw the advez'tiwe~Aand ~·interested• ... : . ; . . -~ .. . ' ·,. ., ' On the eve of. the, -auctio~, thaj:, )s.- ~ 2.)l"d Au~t, ~ . anpJ 1r•i1i ~ t h e ~ to if;1.gw a:¥1 JW ~ ~ lorry~ At the som~"""" ~ d the auc_~ione.er•s documeii~ ?,jjf,i included a Warrant of . ~ t t ~ ~ Movable proper.ties in execution <>f f de~ree for moi;iey dat~d aid June 1 1997• . J . .and. a.Proclamation c,;f Sale (mo--~operty) ~ated 4th Au~:t,._ '19974 . bo~: ~u.ed. biY tbe I ~ Court Ql ~ i a .f#i: ~aam ( ~ e a B. & ·C). The Public auction took pla~ ¥ 24th).ugust, 1997 as previously scheduled, and the ·applicant t ~ ; - ~ to be the successful bidder by offering shs. 6,000.1 000/- as his -~ wqich, was apparently the highest. He i;>aid a down_ ta~ent o.f 25%. on th·.· 'f't· as.-~ fre.~_on~ition- of the auction._ · He was ~ ~t}-l t1 rec~i.pt 1'J • r "??'4 'Am1e,:tw,. n-). He o l ~ the ~ nn 6th ~pt.amber, 1997 whereby ·waa. i ~ with receipt ~ ,Q24g V""QVtm:& E). He was handed over the said lor17 immediately upon paying the balance. On 25th October,. 1997 two p0J.leemen from Mtwara Police Station called on the applicant and ordered him to surrender and hand over the said lorry to them stating that they were actliil}g unde~ the in5truction of the Mtwara Regional Police Commander (1st re,P.aident)~ When he refused to obey that . order, one of them .forcibly reo.chei for the igriition key and drove the said lorry to Mtwara Police Station. On enquiring about the lega1j.i1 of the seizure of the said lorry, the 1st respondent is alleged to have ;~d him that she was acting under the ' orders of her superior officers wh, )tad told her the said lorry was a government property and therefore~~ liable to be auctioned. • •••/3 •••• . AftCl' the oaia loI'P.r waa ~ d At M'twa.z-G.. f "lioe .s,ti,,.•u. )l) tho ' - applicant contaoted the Auctioneer in D'Salaam where he is base-19 to find out whether the judgment of the Industrial Court t..ad been appea_ed against, or whether there were any objection proceedings filec. at the Co·u-t opposing the attachment of the ea!d lorry. He was tcld that th~re was neither an appeal nor objection pro<;eed:iJlgs. He coni;equently i.1Stituted this appl:~cation. In his counter affidavit the loamed Senior Stt:. e Attorney averred that formerly the said lorry was "1e property of Finr.ish Govern:nent. Later it was handed over to Tanzania Government through RIPS Projecto The ~anzania Government l~ed it to Rural Intc~grated Project Support for Lindi and Mtwara for official use. The learned Senior State Attorney went on depon: ng that irr,med.iately after phase one of the Project elapsed all equipmentR concerning the Project were handed over to tha Tanzania Government for othe~ uses. The said lorry was consequent'.!-y assigned to New4,s Co-operative iJni,,n LTD for use but the Government remained the owner.-. He said the auctione·ir and the applicant were informed abo~t. it orally by :nr,cu_ LTD. He sai':1- '1~fort_s by ,~CU LTD ~.n.__ :.., . ..; ... :-· -.~.. .... 1. 2...~J:~r 11. . ' :t·-' _ ., . :· ~i ;~_.....· •••.. • ·:: : ::·~ and .NECU LTD both in the High CO\lft. of Tanzania at 11- :wara. and c.t the ,-.••hl\. ']:. •:.t~'".:,•:. • + r:.. ,,n ,.;.~'..,... ' • ,_,;_;,;;,~ : .. •1 ,~" ••••• • • ,"t .,. . : r Industrial Court of Tanzania at D•Salaam to avert thJ sale of the said, ~OJ' •: J." . : • • : •. ',. .::1:j._,• ... w' •• I 0 -i: ••• 1 , •11' ..!..!i..:.i.:, vehicle proved fruitless. Unde~ lhose cir,c.umstancea it is· the learned ~' ~ I, ~ :.c,ti ' , • .~ ' "•· ·, .: -· ' / ( . '• ''•_, ' • , ' • • • ..._• Senior State Attorney's.argument that the said motor vehicle is still a ~ ~•o • ! ~ • ~0 j O O .. • • 0 0 • • • :: •. ,f". 0 0 ',. .. 0 : • .. h'• •,· •• Government property and ;nobody ell.e can lawfully sell it other- tha11: the. ~• . . . . ' ,,,' . . . :. ·. ~ l ~ \ • '~ ,:._-~ ' , ;••.:-c - "l • • . It, •:,. ' ;·1•~•• ,government iiself. ·· -. f!. •... ; ~ .. f ·,.. i, . The learned Senior State ~ttorney als_o ~verred :hat the sale was also .- -• •. ;.{, • ,1' 0 ' r.,;i .J .. -.-.r'• ~ • , • •. "·~. , .. ,,.J.. •• , ·, ,:~.{ illeg?). because at the time the e~e was being ~ade the s~id Leonard K,F. t .. , . !'' c~... ·: ·., __ ;~ ,. . : .. : ~ ..... 'i<......:.·· .. -~ ;_;-:.,·:· Munyuku had been reinstated to work by MAMCU LTD by letter Ref No. •• . • • -., : • 1 l~J\'' : . ·. L •.·1 . . · . . ~. _.~. - ·, MAMCU/PF«217/24 dated 12th May, 1997 which he did not annex. . .. ....._t. ........:1 .. · · · · .. 1 ·- ·· .►_~ ·• ••• f;..... •· :S·.:~···, .. r·; H~ therefore called _UP.on t.his Court to dismisG this application.with !. J.. • , '\ ( •••• I ; • j .... 1_:.d. -4 ,...._ . " costs • . . In shQrt . tlla,t ;is- tjie gi~~"o~. ;the .ma. t ter..• l "..l 1-• ... j,. ' • • • ~•... ~· .. ~~•.,., ·•• • 'J. • -:..i~: • , ,l ,.,., ·; ., V ..._ . . . . ..._ • .••~i..• There is no dispute tha~ on· 2nd June, 1997 tt.r. Industr~al Court of ,• , ~ . ,. ,. ~ ft., .,: .• , . ,, _. . r .' • . ... . .., •• , .. . \. _ , Tanzania issued a warrant of att•chment of movable property in execution :· · . . . . . . .!. .i ,..,··l·.: ·.c. ...... -:-•1;1· . ~,_ L"'· ,., . . · for [.i.:11 •• ....... ··:...~ .... • :.~:_: 1 of a deci;ee mone.y (Annexture. B) ~ainst the the;::; Mtwara Regioniµ · t: _, • v Co-opera~~ive Union which had by~- split • • .. ,. ~ _ • : '. -'• '" •~ ,; , \ \' '• • • •, • ... e- .• ,• : .., • ' I • j_ ~ \ •;; • 1 t ; t ...... · · {~ - - Pick up Stout Beg. No.-TZA 385; .and~.~rom NFl:U LTD was a:1 Isuzu l.o: cy Reg. 1 No. MT 2578 which is the subj0ct· matter ' .~. in this case. There is also no dispute that ~n.4t~ August, 1997 the same ~dustrial Court issued a proclamatior. of sale proclaming the snl<:, of the se. 1 Isuzu lorry by a Public Auction hel0. by $ll!Jli Auction Mart or.. 24th Augu t, 1997 • 1-~ (Annexture C) • There is equally no disp,. ::.e tha~ the, said auction i ·as publis: 3d in the UHURU Newspaper of 6th August 1 1997(Jum.exture A). There is also no dispute that the said auction was held ptlbl·~a11y on 24.8.97 as advertised and t~at the ~plicant turned out to be the successful bidder by offering· shs. 6,000~,ooo/. as his bid which was apparent. f the hi~hest. I~ is also an accepted fact that the applicant fu.l:~illed the 9.uction condi~ion by paying a down payment of 25% on the spot a::1d the bal :ice within 14 days. There is nothing befnJ·e ... ·fs GQ,urt ·-,f''¢~ indicating that the Indus, rial. Court decision WEE later quashed! r, ·-rers~_.:alte7ed or set aside by an . ppropriate higher authority. ~¾ Equally there is nothing before this Court ind ice. ;ing that · ~e \~arrant of attachmer..t and the proclam;::,:tion ot Sale were later 2.. i.f+;ed, rev '<ed, rescinded, c~uashed, altered, s-:oppe4 or set aside. With all the above fact:: one cannot correctly say the sale -as tainted with illegality or th< }.lice• There is an allegation in the counter affidavit bt the learn d Senior State Attorney that the said raotor vehicle is the property of the government and that the auctioneer and the app].lcant were informed about it rally. This has been denied by the applicant. Even if it is t::--:J.e they W!:.'re informed, which is no,; supported by anyt •.ing, that was not the pr:,rer proc<c:c1.ure. If the respondents had any ob,iec+ · on they should have appJ ie i .before the very Industrial Court for the said Warrant of Attachment to be lifted r for the . ·,./fl.',.• (, "{{ proclamation for sale to be s·ca:red. In other words, s~.nce they v.: re not a party to the suit they should have ip.stituted objectior f"t'oceedir, ·s. There is also an eJ.legation by the learned Senio1 State Att rney (para 11) that the sale was illegal beeause the person ilho was th, cause of that sale Mr. Leonard Muny-:lku had.already been reinstated in his ·ob before the sale• But this does n,Jt ir!l}?rOVi the respondentc: 8 <'.::-fence anJ better• •.••/5 •...• 111111111111111 • -, - ;tf' ,that was t~ ~ th.an eit~ . . ~ t oovton; :::.~ tllR ~ ..Jond.8Pi4 ! I ·; themaelvea should have gone tc •-fat'~ Industrial Co .u·+, and sa::.i so. 1 ,, There is also anothar alJ •e•. . by tho le~ed ~ :,::i.i~ Ste,t -~ A~~h · In para 10 of his counter a f f i , ~ deP(lilejithat ILMCU LTD ail NECU-.Illl:J · .ad,e -eff.orte in thi& .00'1l"t rutd b,, · Inustria.l Court to avert t 1e saJ,e, ~ ' '.,,\ •\ • I to no a'Ve\il. ~learned.Soni•·:_.• Attorne,y did n:~ ela.bore:b as to 'llhat ~ of efforts were made 'to CIW'_.,*bA &µ.&• But whS-Lt:-tfi# th~ c35e may.~ *hi& .Q-Ourt and tt:r.) Induat:tt;lal. - ~ - V G no final sa: Ul. mo.ttet-E of this lla:b.We. :rt is oa1Y' t.il-0 Colll't. ot ~ J from which nc fui\ther- ai:peal lies• Since on the !ace of it tbtt t,l?lioant was. a ~L..,.T_D:7' F'JA ~.llf;(Ei P- ~ O'Di:t 4 . ~ move to dispo~ 'M.c of 1111.e .enid n: )tor vehi.c) .a nau ..,. follow tho ~ 'IW\"li'.lQtl-We- ..:;,e ~ b o o l:r,y' law. It \''..l.S il11pl'Ol 3r f<>l' ~ ~ ~ to gx-e.b it by ~ ~h:i.tt went a'l:..i.in.c •. :J.l knO'Wl ~~- 1)0l"mll in Q C J t U ) ~ oh~-l.sh~ ~ Jilll,tlEP of Law euch r. ; ,)urs. ' Si~ ~e .... -opond~t.ra;: had PO J..w,l. Jlr,\WP'rr .. ,, Gem •;~;,;'\P"'i-'.p t.,\,. ,'l'Q'Dl~• a -e:,tar ~.i:hicla-1 t,hQ r11YPtwtP.rl <:O!l'f~ion is hereby q.:Dnhed. Tla r .. ~~ are ord.iU'ed to X'GStor-e the sai~ . . . . . 'V'ehi.o~ i ~ i T, ,..., "ti ~Y.i.,.-i 0 •· _..,.IM9~ ffll ar;?f'. tQ 411w ~,aii\\io..-. •--\il•td •'., l . ~--·•it••--·-,,,. :1. -,.: . -;,, ..tL IJOOE 17.5.98. ~o~t: Ruling has been ·:1.cJ.i verG4 IJ\ .thi Pi'Uin~e of ~I:'. Kumwem. a lQII\X'• . . , dounsei for the applicoo:\I .t\ad Jn the absence 0f the resrondents although. .served on 27 -~~ 29th da::f o! M. ::.r. 1998. --~~ .a;;,i....'"":,~¥.!'~,' ', i:'.:· (;J ,,P , ~~~ L ., /!. ~ E'~\,,,•·:.·· J~·\, .:.... i::..ll>'' ::'€ ' ',,, *"-:\, ~JI..KAJI ' ~N ... I,,•, - 1;;.2-, • - ,..,~,-, \;.';}:..... ~~~ 'Ill JtltT'IVl'lil ,~.· /"'' / / A''•',;,,,':":'> ( ·- , ,i,,-. '-',I'\ '''}1 ?,, ~~ :.'.,,';,.'; / ;:) ' ,, . ,'.:~~ "'"J!t, t'!\4 (J_ ~~~~';/ ••.5.98.· . .,. . . . . . . . . . . .-:;_:.·:.,- !1.~~