20120925 TZHC Dar es Salaam

I' . 1 . , ·IN.-T-HE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 175 OF 2010 1. MR. SALUM ABDALLAH AWADH 2. MRS. LATIFA YAHYA SAID . . . . . . . . . PLAINTIFFS Vs. 1. BARCLAYS BANK TANZANIA LTD 2. BARCLAYS WEALTH . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFENDANTS Date of last order- 5/7/2012 Date of Ruling-25/9/2012 RULING Shangwa, J. ·1 On 17 th May, 2011, Messrs K & M, Advocates for the 1st and 2 nd defendants filed a joint written statement of defence on their behalf in which they raised two points of preliminary objection against the hearing of the Plaintiff's suit. These points are as follows:- 2 1. That the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the ] st Defendant. 2. That this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. Sometimes later on 23 rd May, 2011, Messrs CRB Africa Legal, Advocate filed a separate Written Statement of Defence on behalf of the 1 st defendant in which they raised two points of preliminary objection against the Plaintiffs' suit namely:- 1. That the plaintiffs have never at any point iri time been "off shore account" customers of the 1st defendant, and, therefore, there is a misjoinder of parties." 2. That this court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' suit. 3 On the same date, that is on 23rd May, 2011 same counsel, that is CRB Africa Legal, Advocates filed another separate written statement of defence on behalf of the 2nd defendant in which they raised one point of law against the plaintiffs' suit that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it. Learned counsel for the parties argued these points of law by way of written submissions. The points which were most argued by them are whether or not this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether or not the plaint does disclose a cause of action. First of all, I will consider as to whether or not the plaint does disclose a cause of action. I wish to state at once that the facts of this case as gathered from the plaint do reflect a cause of action. However, these facts do not reflect a cause of action based on defamation as claimed by 4 Mr. Semgalawe for the plaintiffs. Instead, they reflect, among other things, a claim for the refund of USD 15,000 that they deposited with the 1st defendant Bank for opening an off-shore Account or an Investment Account which the defendants never opened as promised and for payment of USD 6,000 incurred by them as fare for Air tickets for three trips from Saudi Arabia to Dar es Salaam and back to Saudi Arabia and for payment of Tshs.5,000,000/= incurred by them for food, transport and accommodation while in Dar es Salaam for making a follow up in opening an off-shore Account or an Investment Account with the defendants. Let me now consider as to whether or not this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's case. Generally speaking, this court has unlimited territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any suit brought before it. However, under S. 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is 5 required that a suit should be instituted in a court of the lowest grade competent to try it. In this particular case, the total amount of USD 26,000 claimed by the plaintiffs is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Resident Magistrate and the District Court. These are courts below the High Court or this Court. Even if an amount of USD 10,000 claimed as punitive damages is added to the total amount of USD 26,000 mentioned above to make it USD 36,000 and even if an amount of Tshs.5,000,000/= claimed as costs or expenses for food, transport and accommodation is added thereto, the court of the Resident Magistrate and the District Court would still have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' claim/ suit (See Act No. 25 of 2002). Therefore, I entirely agree with the submission by counsel for the 1st and 2 nd defendants Messrs CRB Africa Legal that under S. 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs are obliged to institute 6 their suit either in the court of the Resident Magistrate or in the District Court which is competent to try it. Consequently, I strike it out with costs. ~ A.Shangwa JUDGE 29/9/2012 presence of Mr. Resha for the defendants and Mr. Semgalawe for the plaintiffs . . JUDGE 29/9/2012 I