NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 2

M/S T.i:rmJE -WAYS INVJJST].filJT LTD a::: i i 1..PPLIOlJi!T versus T:J-TZ/J:TL":.. JAT.lilU..YS COfu""Oil..'.TION g:; i I RESPONDENT B....lJLING BtrBESHI 1 J: .t Th.is is ::n ap::)1:..c,c.tfon filed 1).:1der certificate of Urgency .,, of orders thTt: - Han.ing t::o ?::. :~al determination of the intended suit 01· expi:.::: "~ion o:: the to.rm of the franoise ag:rcJhlent ( i~:1ich cvJr comes first,) the defendant, i tici ·agents and 01• workmen be restrained f1,am forcefully a:nd tmlawfully terminating the c ·:1 trac tc and ... Josts of this application to be provided for. Tho Chamber application has the supx,:rt of the affidavit of one 3XtlJD KO~IBE, the managiug director of the applicantts company. At the hearil'lG' o1 th:c3 application, MJ:- Mchora consel for the Responc1on-'c rr:d.sed t,:-o a prelimb.2.:r.;7 points in the following manner, Fi:;:-stly, thr: chamber summons cloi:3s not specify under what lm-; it has been bro1-1{)1t and, secondly, that it is not ~11 l:.no 1-Tith S 87' (a} of the T:10 Act. NO 11 of 1977, To olaborata hfa a:r:;·_--r,101-i-c;:,, Mr Mchora su1Jmitted that since this chamber applica.tion ho.s not been b...~ught under any other law, then S 87 (a) o~ Lot 11 ol 1977 would ar-Jly. In accok"d.ance with that prov~sion, t~1c claimant has to serve tho corpora-~ion with a notice of 30 days befote institutin~ legal ~rooeedings. !I'hat the notice that wac ';·or-;red on to the respond.ont corporation is dated 6/11/1995 hence. the statutory pi'o\-ision has :riot been \ complied wi th1 is l)ef o:ce tho expiry of 30 d~s. Simila.rl;r, ........./2 .:.--- ·:"·. . _ -~~~d Mr i\icho:;..~a1 as pc;; annextu:re t B to the affida.vi t 1 notice 1 · -:- ~ to terminate the cont:raC't was dated 28/8/95. The applicants were ' . r.J awe.re of the situation and ought to have complied with the law before il:sti tuting their cla.im. Mr Mchora ·was of the view that the applicant' s ~.:,"Pl,toa:ti:l .has no merit and it should be dismissed. with costs. ✓ Mr Mugc,.nda, lc(·;.:.~1ed counsel for tho applicant conceded that the application wti.s not ".lfted with tho lau under which. it bad been brought. 13u-b ho ro:".:-:.tcd out t}1at it wn.s olcn.i'rom tho relief sought that tho rp1Jlic2.t~.on is bci:1g nado ur.:d.or O 37, R (1} of the OPC 1966 which deals ~rit:1 tompo:-nry. I:ifinjuntio:c1s. Further, Mr. Muga.:nda. argued tb.at O :5 :.117 allows for amendment of proceedings at any s ~ before j1,i',3:-:i:1nt is pronounced. And tha. t this honourable court he0 t 1·;) in..1.oront jurisdiction. JPalto__ suo~ omers '¥1 which aro likely to r.-1-;·(',:'.CC t:_10 ~~atrotio::i'- jµat,~~o- . . .... . .: 4 ••• In re:ply .Mr Mchoru 6ubmittcd that O 37 (1) onvisagod the .-- · existence of a suit. In ·~he p1,osont application, thoro is no au:a filed honcc an amendment in terms of O 37 ( 1) is totally misconceived. Mr Mchol"a. did net support tho pray-or for amepd.mout~· _Orr: this l:Ir Mugand.a oountcrod that it is the prao:bico of this court to gran:b tcmpor0,zy injunctions own whoro thoro a,:,o no suits I ; filod. Ho referred. this court to tho case of J.i'P.,ANg M. MAMqA~,ijll VS PAUL KY.t...UICA. !TJAU ( 1S\'32) g 121 as n cn,so in point. I must hasten to say that :i....nvinc 1x-:-.i tho authority oitod, I have, with duo respect to Mr EU.(W'lda, ,• :.?;md tho case - hoth d.istringuishablo a.rid 11ot on a.11 fours with tho application bo:f'o:ro mo. I shall thoroforo hOt mn.ko an,y rcforonco to it. I think, it ic l)crti.."'.O:'",t at this juncture to dispose of tho first objoction. 03 7 ) 1) to 'Wh:!.ch Mr rhlCondA socks rolia.noo of road.st · '' 1• Whoro in c.:1.,.v su1. ~, ( om:pba.sis mine)· it is pro'V'OQ. by a.ff id.a.vi t or othorwiso,..:. (a) · Tha.t miy i:roporty in di°:1puto in a suit is in dango:~ of being wasted, ~~ or aJ.iona.ted. by any ~Y ·!i<J tho suit, or suffer loss of ".raluo by roa.son of its contin~,us by any party -to tho suit•• • • • • • ti • • • "" . . . . . . . ~ . • • . • . ,-e •• 4' ••,· • • ~~·~· . . . . . ., .... , ./3. ----· o • •·• • • • • • •·o • • e • • • •• • • • • • • • •• • •••··•·• ('b) the court lllaJ', by order grant a temporary injuo:bion to restrain such act••••••••••••"•••••••••••• until tho disposal of the suit or until further oi~a.orsi..· lt is therefore cloa.r·trom tho provisions above that there must be a (registoreo.) su.i t ponding in cour·~. /., 3ui t in court, in my humble undei·sto.ncLi;.ig, is whore a suit has boon rogistored and humbercd aoco.rctinel::" Do we th.::;rofo:re !1c·wo a suit pending in as far as thio•:ap)lfo~ tion is concerned?. I think, not, there is be:f'oro mo, ~:o roc;:.sto:·od suit as yet ponding in this court. As pel.• parag::::,.ph 6 of' ·the filed affidavit, there is attached to the said a:ffida.vit .§.''_;,... :1:Pt'"~1dod Flaint but this is not a suit in terms of O 37 ( 1) alJo,,-o citod, In that vein, I am inclined to agroo with Mr Mcho.ro. th2.t such intorlocutor--y- applications ha.vo to bo made pursuant to 2:::1 oxiotinc suit - tho ap::;,lioation oannot be made " hanging i.11 tho air" as it woro. Tho amendment sought ~y tho applicant crumot therefore be grarutod as it is totally misconceived. On tho secoml preliminary objection, learned. counsel Musand.a ' has tried to put up an argument that S 87 (a.) of Act 11 of 1977 is not applicable. Tho relevant provision roads, " 87 - 1 Whore any aocb:.:;.::. or. other legal prooeoding ia commonccrl a,_ c:i~1st tho corporation for ruv act, do:10 in pursuance or oxooution or intended execution, of this Act or of ruw public duty o:i.• authority or in rospeot of cny alleged neg:loot or dof'a.ult in tho oxooution of thi~ let or of any suoh duty o~ authority tho following provisions shall ha-n off oct. {a.) Tho action o~ loga.l procoocling shall no-'; bo commoncod. against tho oo~ntion until at least 0110 month aftor fl'ittolt •o••••••••••••w• •••••••• .. ••,._•••it•••••t ···········•··•·~·~--·~·····~---······ has ' ,l boon s,1fye4': µpon tho Oenoral ~ r 1 I I · . · ·· . · tn by tho plaintiff ..... _. ••.,............ •I' . " • j' 4 .... ~ ,) for the :>:·oapondent h.us submitted. that, tho application 1-h' !'1cht;Xb, fails squarely u:ndo:r S 87 (a) as tho contract was for providing meal services to passongo1.~s - ho:::Jo in pursuance of an act done in public duty. lir T:Iv;;2.::.i2, 1 rathor ln;.,ol;:;, thought o:bho1~wis0 in that it ·was not relato'd to ~,ub2.ic duty ns por S 87 (a) of thd''°'TRC Act '11 · of 1977• With much rbspoct to Mr Nuganda, I think tho law is very clear• Tho contract between tho :::;::rplicants and tho rospo:ndent termed "Fra- nchise Franchise o:f (k;to:.:::.:1c; Sorvicas" of November, 1993, was for tho oporat1oh of nlontral lino DSM/M~/DSM Station r o s t ~ t and tea stall as per clause f o:f the Franchise ,Agroo,l1011t. In m:f oonsi tered opinion, such a contract as tho ono entered by the applicants to provide meals to pa ·isongcrs on respondents trainf:I fails squarely ,. undor S 87 as being llc:~ a.ct done in pu:t'SVJ1,ncc of n public duty'' in tho oxcution of the Act No, 11/77 - o.s providod for und.or eaotion ,W... ( 1) · (f) whi0h rondc.,fil tt· 14 Tho Corporation shall hnvo polf0r1- (8-) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• t,b ) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• (o) (tr) . ····················~······ (o) ·······~··~················ (f) ·····~····················· to provide within tho United Ropublio, both for t:-.c p,.1.3sor!{sors on1.Tiod by the Co:,:,porntion n.nd othor porsons, hotots, other living acoommond.:1,tion al'ld. plooes of refrosbmcnt, (g) to provide within tho Unit0cl Ropublio such otbtlr ~outtios or fooilitios for passengers oarriod by tho·oorpomtton anu. othor persons mttking use o't tho · services performed or the fa.cilitios p,:o vided by tho corporation • , ..... u • • • ··········~·~······················· Having stated, ocme of tho :i'unotions tl12·b ~a.n bo porf'ormod by the resp,nd.ont oorpor.?,tion, I. am, 010~2:~ sta-t.:.sfiod thnt the oontra.ct entoroa l)otwoon the n.pplicnnt 1!1"1.d the rospondant wr.s in fu.rtherenoe of tho n~ovc ft:u1otions.