20021009 TZHC Arusha

' . f .. ... • AT ARUSHA MISC. ,QJ:~IIt,N,ll,IC~TIQ.li NQt. 2L/~OO:I;. ( Ofi5,h1l~~.J:i;:Q.II1 HCCO 52/122.9) • NATIONAL BAI\~{ OF COMMERCE LTD.••• • • 0 0 0 e APPLICANT - Versus - RENADA MINERALS OORI-ORATION L':rD. .. I 0 o•• eoo ••• RESPONDENTS J%C.HOLDJJLG~QO@QAA~J--1L,___...~--------~------···. ~------ R U L I N G . This -is an application under Order J- Rul_e_l£L2,l r,f ~ • - Civil Procedure Code~ 1966 in which this Court•s Order is sought 0 I¥'-""-• ,/ ·to strike out the name of the applicant and substit11ta theret~ the .. name of the 2nd respondent. In the alternative, this Court is being asked¥to extend time to the applieent to file a written statement of defence. The Alternative prayer is grounded on the provisions of Qr4er VIII Rl1~!L,i(?2 ·oi. Th~_q;~l ft9_.cedure_pode..,2. l;J§£ and §tl4 . ./ .. ~ of The Law of Limi tat'ion 6¥ Act, -l~l. - " ....ow:=:,~- . • • - , Mr •. Magai learned advocate has filed. a written •ubmission on behalf of the applicant., In a nutshell, the gist of the applica- tion is that by virtue of s.10 of The National Bank of Commerce ----- - - . 4 . . . ... - fRe•rfillnizw,~n .a~ V2,,sti_n~fwAss§t9-c}EQ.__Li3;.bi¼J..iie!!~ Act ,1,9~ . e.s amended b.l,. i~,e _Wri tien ~a}J~,l~~~g_el.J.@ee,,u•._.fffie~e_nt l _Ac! No. 2[98 _.••_o•••o•••/2 r \ f .~ •. "/'.} : :~:r.?. . :\": . -.-~ ... i ,, . 2 . .... and further amended by th~:.~~leviirif\-srovision~ :of jiCt 10/20.912 ! to quote Mr. Magai, 11 .: ~ ~ o. ~ all 3..iabilities ari13ing. from both. ,. . banking .and .. non banking activities· -~f which :·. 'the cause of action arose ~rior to 1st October, ... 1997 - were and )3re ves:te4: in _t_he ~"BC Holding . - .. . . . .. . . .. . ~- C9rporation (now Consolidated. Ho_ldihg Corpo.:.:.i ·. ' ... ' ; . ,. : ration) a.net' sG.::;tion ·10 of the ··Act as . .amended . .. . . -· , _by Act Noo 10 of 2001 E:?xpressly exclude the _iipplic.ant · from claims which have their causes .of actio'n: . arose before the effective date 11 o Oh the other.hand, Mr. Ojare learned adV:ocate pas appeared • • •• ' • ., - • I•• •• • • ,_., • .• .... ....:.... ·.. : . and filed a wriJ;t~~-- ,.. submission ...on behalf -:-:-:-,.. of' :.the . . _: . 1st respondent. . . : ... ~ . {~gaini·.. i~ a nuf·sri.ell-~. he is of the view .that th~ provisions of . . - . - .:·... -~·-· .... - .. . . ....;,.:. • ♦ t_ ,. • Orct.et-".' ,, 1 Ru!.£, l,O_ (?2. is limited in its application -to a situation ~"" wh~re a .. !'~i?-ty . ~. . has been improperly joined - a situation whic'h doe~- ~ not arise :her'e· (ioeo Civil Case Noo ·52/99; because 'thef-e· are no joint plaintiffs or defendants.; And that .. the .applicant who is the ~ sole defendap._t__._pann_ot claim t?_:!:~::~ been. imp_roperly joined and .. · ...:,-:___ ·---· therefore bring-its elf ·-wi t_hin · the. provisi.ons .6f._ Order 1 Rule l0(2l•·. · • ~ •... : . . ... . --· : .•• , • ·• ¾ ' ·.. In this regard,- }Ir; Qjare-·-~as cit.e.C. the ease 0! Daphne Parry v Murr~ '•. ... _ ,.,.. ........ ....... ,•.. "tl1e application for dismj_ssal was misconceived as •·-.. I . . • ,,. .: . . ,. . . ~ -0.1 rol0(2) d·ea:tt wittFparties who have been wrongly ., ..' '• .,,. _..j.9ined. or who ougl:rt to be joined or added, to "join" •--!·;·> --~---~.::, ..:.~-: . ''!· \ . . . or 11 ad.ci" a party was not,~synO'nimous~·-'with maki_ng a . f•r- • • ' . ;•··lo • . . person.¢ -·party:... to-. -·.a~..sui ti~;" 4...~;o,<>. . .. 11 0 0 ; ......... :-;· 0 .. 000000/3 ' . r • 3. Also at-,ii'>age 517 that:- 11Unl'ess the.removal of the plaintiff or defendant leaves the suit intact, Ool rule 10(2) cannot apply .. 11 Mr. 9jare, is also of the view that since the aPP+.icar:.t has since filed a ,...•..written statement of defence in Civil Case Noo 52/99 in • which_there is_a preliminary point cf objection that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against it then_the gist of this application can only be argued in the said objectiono l .._ ' ~ ...... : ,.: Mr.,-Maruma ... learned advocate has also.filed a written sub.:.:. mi.e5::1or}',:-.on· behalf of the 2ncl :::espcr1dentr. In his submis,sion; yet agai.n.in a nutshell 1 it is not :for the applicant to decide who • t_he .pespondent, s:hould sue. He went on. to urge that the said res- pondent ~.:...--- hae .freedom under the law to chose whom to sueo :.--:·, And that in exercise of that freedom it will then be upon the Court ulti"!\" mat;e3=,y to determin'= whether ("I" :::iot a cause- .:;.::. action i's di~clt,sed from _the plaint.. He went o:;:i to urge that it is "otherwise unusual for. a Defendant to come to Court aI1.d ask that they be removed from the suit and that a tl1ird party be brought in to take their :plac.;2 11 ., In· conplusion, he was of .':i_,, v~.ew that should the applicant feel that there is no cause of action there·is·always an opportu11ity to . i '.. _raise.the matter as a preliminary point of law in the main suito I must confess that I have read with ·keen interest thr. submissions for and against the application. In the ~ I am .satisfied that the application_-must fail for the following reasons:- One, _as corr~ctly argued by Mro Ojare, the situation envisaged under O..r,_~er~U~J...Ll0~(2l_does not arise in this situati~n. The ' applicant as a sole defendant in the main suit could not claim to _p.ave been irnproperiy -j,o:hnedo· · •. i ; • ~ , since the applicant does'not deny that a written statement of defence (with a preliminary point o.f objection under paragraph 1 thereof) has been filed., then it is only fair to say (as ~gued by both Mro Ojare and M::-,., Ffaru:na) that the best place to canvass the point herein would be there and not here~ Indeed this is where ··), ;;,,:~, the passage quoted to me b~r Mro Ojare f:t·8m R?r_F~ case at ~ . - ~.§ is relevant thus~= "the ~oUi't cc~.-.·..1 not Grderc that thP. defendant be "disrr.issed. ::·.com th,~ sui tn without either. holding that the plaint disclosed no cause of -action against him; or that, m1 the fs.ce of the pleadings as a whole, the p~aintiff ,. ', had no chance of s~ccess. as, to so hold would be t'o prejudi_c.e the pending suit itself; one of ' ' "' ,, . ' ' the issues :~::1 ~,;:j_:;h was that the plaint disclosed no < • I cause of acti: .lz :?u:7ther th(::re has been no application for rejection of the plaint under O.VII r.11 as dis- closing no cause of action.u The applisation lacks merit. It is dismissed with costs. J., Ho MSOFFE JUDGE 9/10/2002 • • .o &---o·•,o o/5 • 5 Date: 9/10/2002 For 1st R.~,2n~1en.t.t Mr., Ojare AdV)<5o.te ,... Absent., :[_or 2ud Res12.9.P~~nt: Mr .. Mar.uma Advocate - "" Present Court: Ruling delivered to Mro Maruma .for the second respondent this 9th day o:f October., 2002.,