mlandizi farmers limited vs emmanuel marangakis 2020 tzhclandd 3882 11 december 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO. 153 OF 2019 MLANDIZI FARMERS LIMITED........................................ PLAINTIFF VERSUS EMMANUEL MARANGAKES......................................................... 1st DEFENDANT OTTO MARK MOSH A....................... ................................... 2NO DEFENDANT NIKOLAOUS DIAM AN DIS DRIZOS............................................ 3rd DEFENDANT Date of the judgment 10/11/2020 Date of the last order 10/11/2020 RULING I. MAIGE, J. This suit has been pending in this Court, without progress, since 27/11/2019 when it was filed. The records of this Court suggests that initial summons was issued on 29/11/2020. First appearance was on 11/03/2020 and advocate Shadrack for the plaintiff appeared. He prayed, which was granted, for reissuance of summons and the matter was fixed for mention on 11/05/2020 then rescheduled for the same on 19/06/2020. On the said date, the records show, the plaintiff appeared through Mr. Wilson who purported to represent advocate Kusalika for the defendants. Quite unusually, he did i not return a copy of summons to the Court whether served or un-served. He did not avail the Court any feedback on service of summons too. In the subsequence proceedings, Mr. Kusalika had been entering appearance for and on behalf of the defendants. The records indicate that despite his appearance, he had not been served with summons to file written statements of defense. That is so notwithstanding the order of this Court at the instance of the plaintiff as to that effect. There is no such evidence on the record too. In his submissions, Mr. Shadrack told the Court that advocate Kusalika was served with the plaint on 28th November 2019. He admits to have not served the defendant whether personally or through his counsel any court summons. Express from the proceedings of this Court dated 11th March 2020 is the fact that on the said date, the plaintiff was ordered to effect service of summons to the defendant. The alleged service of plaint on 28th November 2019 assuming it is relevant, it cannot be evidence of compliance of the subsequent order of the Court dated March 2020. 2 It is a fact that this matter has been pending here for more than 11 months. It would have not been so but for want of service of summons to the defendant. This trend is uncalled for and cannot be tolerated. In the premises, the suit is struck out, under order VIII Rule 21 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33, R.E., 2019 with costs, for want of compliance JUDGE 10/11/2020 Ruling delivered this 10th day of November 2020 in the presence of Mr. Shadrack for the plaintiff and Kusalika for the defendant. 3