20161215 TZHC Dar es Salaam

' , .; IN THE HIGJi COURT OF-TANZANIA . : (COMJ~1ERCIAL:bIVlSION} ',' _·. ::·: . ,. ' ,- .· .... ; -: ·. :_ . ~-.: _.. ,-: .; .... ; :· coMMERc::tAt ·cAse Nci ·si or=· 2otG·· ·_ • · · [Origiria'rcon,·~nertial case· r,fo•~· 29·3 of 2002)1 • ' • 1 : ('.,, •• -MTIB\N'A SUGAR ESTATES.LIMITED, • • 'f' : ;,.. ·- . • •! ................................... PLAINTIFF •• : • • • :: ·--. ·• ~ ! •• ·•••• ..;"t . ' ', '.-: .. . .: •• . . . . -' ' . : .. -: . •. . . . ,c;,t: ';·., ·., . ... . ~ •, .. '., . ,. _:Y;~.~~~s. . :> SIEMENS TANZAJ~IA LIMITED ' , SIEMENS LIMITED .·.,, - ········•····"··············· DEFEN-DANTS SIE.MENS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED ·.· .. · ! . . :' • • • ·-·· BJJLIN~ ' ··- .. . . . . . The plaintiff MtibvJa Sugat Estates Lihiited instituted the present spit ,...... against ·, the three defendants praying against them jointly and several_ly fur: ·several . .· . ·. . :··.-....; . <· . \:; :·,.- : . . .. : . . . f:-- orders . . enumerated. . in., .the plaint. . In the ·. . . : . . . . . . Joint Written .Statement df Defence, ~ the defendants pleaded. a counter-claim. The plai~tiff has raised a preliminary ·, objection against the coun,ter-claim. The preliminary objection has two points couched thus: ·1. The claims by the ,defendants in their counterclairi-1 are res subfudice· as .tbeie is a pe·ndirig adjudication· proceeding in respect of the same - . . ·· .. subject matter .before. Hon. Kitururu~ AdjudJcator at the Disputer ·:•. Adjudication Board, Dar es Salaarn; .a.lternatively. . . .·. ·:·, - L l. . 2. Tile claims IJ~-the :defeh_d,ants in thei(counterc_laim ~re. res Judicata as [ the same· has:.already been fully determined by a ·competent authority t t . ~- the Arbitration foundation of South Afrita _:_ and its award been t=- r delivered b_y Hon. CHJ Badenhor~t on 13.02.2015. l . ~ Hearing of the preliminary··objectibr'l' \,vas · conducted on 31.10.2016 andi ,. ; ·:·c· -~ .. -\:: -:· . . . . · ri . 09.11.2016. It was Mr.·:.SYlivatus:·sylivanus Mayenga~ learned counsel whoi L .<· ·, :.. ···; • . . • ' . '.°:t_· appearecl for the p.lai.ntiff cm· ,31.:10.2016, but later,. on 09.11.2016, Mr.' 2--,::.,r,~:.:~-';'_:.' . . . ; ·.. ;; .'. . . fc Edvvard Mwakingwe, learned· c_ounsel appeared for the _plaintiff. On f- :.·. -~., -:;: .: 31.10.2016 Mr. 1''1chome~ learn.ed ·counsel qppeared for the re.spondents but I_: . . .. -. .: . :. .~ .,: . - ..... :. ·.: . : . . . ·. . . t- . . on 09.11.2016, Mr. Mc::f1ome_joined fo_rces. with.Mr.-. Faraji, learned counsel, to-r ~-.'°: ;_<: .... . : '. .· ·..• . ...._. . - . ' _ : .. '.'·: . . .....'' :_: . ..·. . ... t· ... :· :· . . . ~ ~ . . ; f_ represent the -respondent. The learned counsel. for the parties had earlier i~ >1: ,i..,:,:-., - -- . -.-. __ . _-- _. -. ·.-. - . -. -__ .· I · filed their respective skeleton arg·uments as dictated by the provisions of rule ff··:::, · .. · .; : . . . . ,' . . : . . t 64 of the High Court (Commercial· Division) Procedure Rules, 2012 - GN No. F··:·:=•. '. · · ",,:: . . . .· . . _··... : -·. .. : . ;- :-=· .... ~ ' .- ·.. . . . .. . ·_' • !( . -. 250 of 2012. • · i· : ,. :, ..., - f h I Mr. f:1wak:ingyve, learned counsel, ·in both the skeleton Mr. M_ayenga and . : --· . . . . - - . : r~ t::" ,:, ·... arguments (which were adopted at the hearing) and oral submissions during ; ·· · · · .... the hearing, submitted on the ,first· point- that the claims by the defendants in ~ <: · . thelr'. couhtercla1rn are ,res ·subjudice · as there .is a pending adjudication proce~ding in respect of the same subject matter ·before Hon. Kitururu, . i . Adjudicator at ·the. Dispute,· Adjudication ·Board,. Dar es Salaam. ·They · · submitted that the reliefs soug.ht;·in the -arbitration proceedings are the same i i 1 . ' · as the ones sought in the counte.rclain1. 1he lec::1rned counsel relied on several . '· ·.-'- authorities to state that the .suit' must be stayed on account of its being res subjudice. The authorities relied· upon are: Lotta Vs Tanaki ant! others, ' 2 lt r f {2003] 2 EA 556, Karshe Jts Uganda_Transport Co Ltd [1967] EA 774 anf .Sarkar on Law of qvi,.!P.r~c.ediJ_.te, ·:8th _Ed_iti6n, Volum,e 1 ·at p. 46. f • h .., - ., •. J • • /; r •,. . . . . ......:, ·••· ·-•, . . . .. . ,.,-,_ ·: . .·...:-.- ·_._;.-· :.,. ·. · .· · •. . . . . f. On the second preli~i-.n~rt·~o·(~t: -~hie~ hai be~n-arg.'ued in the alternative, tiler learned counsel subrhitte:d }h~~t_t~-~-:c~_~:h_terc:l~i,m_ 'i? ,res_judicat~_ as the sam~~ :,.•·· .. '·· ... ·..., .-. '- . . . .. .. · ... - . . . . . . I has already_ been fully deterrnin~q by a competent authority - the Arbitrationk •' : •• ••, < :..,,, • ··, • ~ ., !, ;• . •" . . ,· : ',. . .. : • . . ·, . : Foundation of Sout~.: Afrid ._..:· ~nc.1 · its' :~Ward Was deliver~d . by Hon. CHJ~ 1 ·•.i ,; ,• i-:· . . . . . ~ Badenhorst on 13.02;2015, ... On .this ground,. the learn~d counsel submittedl . -. . :-:·:-1,._. •., .. -.·. ·- .... - . ·..... -._ - . ·:.·,. .. . .- . r the award_ is in place and therefore.th~_.q?un½erclaim ~hould__b~dismissed: ,• .. . tI : i:: _.. :,, Responding, Mr .. Mcf1~~-e;·:·1ear~~(f ·c~·un~el, h~vi~g idop·t~d the skeletoni: ·. . . ·. . . . . . . ·.. ·... ,.: ·: --,,,:, ._. ·-·, . . . " .. . :· . ·: . .· .. ~ -·; , arguments · eariier · filed/:· s·ubmitted 6n ·the· secorid · p'oi'nt of preliminaryf objection that the' fot·eign jud.grnent. referr~d-t~ 'was· not conclusive; it cannoti, . . . . , . . . . . [ .. , therefore be res JUdi;~{;, ·: th'~t- the is .not a Hi ;;bbmitt'e.d' a'rbittator' court! •. • . .. ' . . • , . • . . ....... : '. ·:- ;; . ,>' .':i- . .. . . . t vvithin the rneanirig of the CPC and therefore the doctrine of res judicata will~ . . - . ·. - . - . . . .r not apply. He·. added that .a suit is that cornmenced 'by -a· plaint; thus thee. to by the learnedt • • . . . I doctrine will not apply to arbitration proce~di:ngs~ r~ferred . • !~ · .counsel for the plaintlff. r· lt ...... ·::·_-"_.) -':.·:· ;.. . .: ... · .· .. . . .... . ... : . . . l On the first point, Mr.· rvlfhbme, learned counsel', argued 'that the proceedings! 8 . , '. .,., ::;:ec:;:~~:e: :y :rttg:~;t:r~:t!:dri::t;:;It. ~fet::a:ct~:t :~j 5 ' .... . . ... . . '• ,· . . , f conditions in the Lott~ case.,hlust b~ .'m·et for the. do-cfri·n~ ~6f resjudicata to! apply and that they appli~ab.ie in ;esbect C>f .a piea of fes subjudice. He added •• •.• :· ' i •• that the second poiht ··of the ·preliminary objection does not qualify to. be a ., .. ··• preliminary objection. as lt will. need evidence t~ prove if. Rejoining, Mr. Mwakingwe for. the . piaintiff .stated 0that .tfre. award by an a;bitrator is final and conclusive between: the parties. He elucidated that tbey · filed MisceHa·neous Commercial Cause No. 247 of 2015 for its enforcement. 3 . , ,- The learned counsel added that ·the ·pleas ·of fes subjud(ce arid res _Judicata a-r·e pure points of law failing with.in the \s~op·e ·and PtJ~iew of Mukisa Biscuit . ::, .: ;:'' ;: ··: ;::: . · ·.Manufacturing co·ttd vs··west EndD1stribuiors-Ltd-[l969] 1 EA 696. · >'~·::·::-;.,•. ·/.:-,., ...:_:·, _I ·have subjected the le~i-n~d rival c1rgun~ents of the_ l~arned _·counsel for the : . · ·, ·. -· · ··· ·:, ,-, ___ ,. .-~.~ - .. - .--- . . ··-.- --·. ~- :~.- - - - .. .. --:-•·;~._; ~ ~ parties to proper scrutiny:, Th~re a.r.~. . . ... ' ,_. : . . . . . : '., . ,. ~ .r:n,illion 9olla~ questions which, in my . . . ~- .. . r. . '. . .. ' . . . two, ·:: .<- ::- , · view, this rulin~J must answer. . First, is whether the proceedings before .-,_ ..c.'. · Kitururu 1 Esq.· may: .oe:. . ._descdb'~o . . . .' . ..- . as: . . a, suit· . to which .. . the· doctrine . of res ~ ~ •' . subjudice is applicable.:··.A_nd .. the secon:d-·-respects the-second point which has <.:-_ .. • ·· ..... · · been argued in :t!1e· alternative:a11d if is~_.whether.the ·arbft~al .awa~d by the · -:'.-.'.··:- :1:,::~.: · : arbitrator in ,South Africa :.arnounts ·to· c1: suit· to which the doctrine of res . ,. ·.. , J·udicata is apo.licable .. -.. > · ·.. _: .. , · . • • I The issues vvlll not detain nJe~ the doctrine of res SlfbJudice is embodied in . ,.·.:·r:., ,•,•·-· -~"¥< ... " . ' _.'~:. : . ·. . _;. . . . - . . · section 8 of th~ CPC . -· The -· ·-. object . underlying . . . .: this provision . is to prevent courts· . ' . ' . ,/ ••· 1 . ·-·• of . . concurrer1t . jurisdiction ·: to .simultaneously ' . . . . . . try . two . . suits , in respect of the · · "i --~ \ ·: .. : · same subject matter; For.·. ~~sy reference, . repro~uce the secetion I. '. ->.: .· ,,. . . -., . ,·•,.. · hereunder: •• •••~I .... \ ·•• ''No coLfft.shall .. . .. .. proceed with -~ the trial . of any suit in. . . . . . which· the matt;er . . ...... ~- .. .... : . in .issue is also directly and .. : ·.. _ ., . substantially . .. .. in ..issue in a·-·-··· previously instituted suit . ·::··.... -.. · ... . . behNeen. . th_e. same pqrties, . or between . ., ·:·,: . . ...parties . · . . . . under . whom _,..- they .or any of them . .-. claim . .... • litigating ' under the sarn~ ti\le where such suit is pending .in the. sarne or any yther court in. Tanzania having· jurisdiction . to . grant . . the relief . ciaimed:" - . '• 4 -The catch words here .are pertclency of .a suit on th~ same matter which . . . ~ is substantially in ·•:iss1ie Ojn·;the · $ame ·court .or. a_ny.- other court in Tanzania. ... · ,·· The·. term "court~' ap:p~arin:g<·in'·:the·: ·above·. section:. is defined under the interpretation section .of the GPC-as:: . ,.. ·-.'.· __ ; __ : · • • • : ·.:.;. _: < _·"'court', __except_ i,:i.: the expression ·'f;r~ig_n court', 1 means the _Highfc"ourt ci .tbe ··u~ited:,fiep~bHc, a .court or'a; -r~~;d~:n~- -~ag;-~trat~' 6r ·--~- di-~trict c~urt _ presided ·over by.-:a,civil magistrate.and :references · -to a district court· are references to· a district cou.rt·- 11 presided. over by··a-.civil·-magistrate ; • • , • ·. · .. .1-\nd the term "foreio~ .... ', . . ·, . c~-~rt;,'\~: d~~ined ~rid~; ·the. same ·'-:··_ ,· . . ·:sectfon to mean: . .' . ·. ' , ' . . . . ·, .. ·.-.. . " .... a cou1t sltuate·d beyond the limits of Tanzania.· which has: no :a_uthority-in Tanzanta'1. ·_· · This provision is in par! mat~ria with section 10 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure. Commenting:. on··the scope and· appl1tation of section 10 of the I )' •-:; ·. '. •. :. -'• - ,.- .-. ,. . . . . . ' .. Indian Code of Civil Proced_ure, .Sarka~: _Code of Civil Procedure, 11 th · . ' ' Edrtion Reprint 2011,by-.Su9ipto Sarka·r and VR Manohar has this to say at p. ..:.•..:.i:: :.' __ . 88: '; :··:·· . _··.: "The la_nguage of S. 10 . suggests that_ it is referable· to a suit instituted in the Civil Court and it cannot apply to proceeding of. ~ther nature instituted under any other statute". [Emphasis· supplied]. 5 In view of the abov~,juxtaposi.r\g tl)e authorities with the. facts-of the instant case; I have . no scintilla - of qolJbt,thcJt .the Dispute . Adjudication:Board . 1 . is not a . :·:.. -·.. -··. court with in the meaning _of ,the: CPC ·to· wt, ich·: the .doctrine .·of· res subJudice is · applicable under section 8 .. Thus it. is apparent that the. proceedings now ·. ·. : . -. ,··· being pending 1n court, dO not\ittracifrie ;~ppiicability of the ...doctrines of res- subjudice. ' ' Likewise, in the alternatjvE; gro,und of objection,tbe principle ·of resjudicata i$· ' ' embodied under section:-9:uf our:CP.C~ The5ectio.p·provides: .. "No court'shall'tr/inv,suit or· issue in:wh,ichthe' matter' :dii-ectly and substantialiy in issue has been .- directly. an<J,su~:st,mtially, in'. issu.e,.in a. former suit betwe.en . -the• same pc1rties __ .or ... between parties · ur:ider whom. they _or -:any of them claim litigating· . under the same title ·in, a c:ourt_ competent to try such subsequent suit or the. suit in whiGh such issue has been subs~quently raised and has been- heard an~ fin'ail/,d;dded by ~J-~h: cciurt.';· ' ' The above section is in pari:materia with section 11 of the Indian Code of Civil '~:, '.:J::- . . .. Procedure on which, agEJin, ·Sarkar: ,:Code_:of .Civil Procedure· (supra) has this to say at p. 103: , :·,.. · "The principle_· of_ res judicata operates .on. the c,,urt. it. is'• the . .. Courts which .are prohibited -· . ' . ~ from trying the· issue which w·as dir-ectly and subst~ntially in- issue in the earlier proceedings between the same parties provided that the Court 6 • · - tying the :s.ubsequent:proce~ding.:is-. satisfied: that the eartier>Court was :.cmrnpetent to dispose.of the earlier proceedings and that the matter had· been heard and flnally decided by such Court';. ·- ., . ._ . _.,_·:-: .: ·: ·. :, . >.·: ... ·: . .. :·. -·: :. . . :. ::. . .-·, : ... - [Emphasis. added]'. · •. . Flowing from the above,.:it.is.-apparent that.the :doctrfnes of. ressubjudice.and: ;_:_,,·,., ·-,,_i .0: res Judicata are appllcabJe·: ~o;·•suits· in .court:· Mu Ila: the: Code of Civil: .. ,, -· -__ :-,.:;- :- - Procedure by Sir oinshab:·fardunji MuNa-,.ist~-Edition,2011,-defines the term~--\'>·: . _\:.,\.· "suit" at p. 163 as follows::::.·. . ·" ·· -- ···· ,. · · - ~: ; .: '. . .... ' .... ;- -:· ~ . . .. "The word 'suit' is im_portant f~r ou~ purpose. As per the. pr~-~isi6~·s o(o· 4, r 1 of th{ c·ode of Civil Procedure ·every· ·suit ·shalF. . .be ,instituted.·· by . . presentinq a piairit to the court or such officer as ft appoints .-i~ .its. behalf. -.. T~erefore,. the word '"f..t.li~t' ordinartiiy·. 1neans. a.civil . proceeding ._ institutedJJy:-P,.r.esentinga .plaint.'( · The proceedings ·which. the -learned---counsel for the plaintiff ·argues should apply as, respectively, res sub subjudice and res judicata are .those before ·.l,·1•.:•,; ·:, .·;-; ... Kitururu, Esq. at the Dispute Adjudic.:ation Board arid in respect of award by the Arbitration Foundation of South Africa. Basing on the above discussion, I .· . :' ._ . ... have -no iota of doubt that they are not suits to which t:h.e two doctrines may· ~pply bec:ause they were riot· ;·ommenc~d by a plaint. ··Neither ar~ they (the Dispute .£\djudic.ation B~-~i-d. ~nd the_ Arbitration Foundation of South Africa) . - ,. :. .' courts envisaged by the -provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the CPC. In the 7 'premises, I find both point of the preliminary objection;: the first one on res · . subjudice and· the· $econd one. on.<res Judicata .. argued · in the alternative, wa11tit1g in merit. · -I :will. thereto-re ·not-indulge myself .in deciding on other · · ·arguments fronted by .the learned counsel.for the parties; for, .that endeavour will be but an academic ·exercise ·which can be done at another opportune !- . i- mon,ent. · ·· · ·... · ~ :~ -~· .. .-:<·... :. The above said _and done, the two-point preliminary objection· is overruled in its entirety· with costs.·· Order accordingly. . ,• . . cl.. C;.M._MVJ.AMBEGELE, .· . . .-.-.. ~~PGJ; 8