20030319 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 20030319 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 19 March 2003
- Posture
- Civil / Judgment on Default
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 19 March 2003
- Posture
- Civil / Judgment on Default
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The defendant was duly served but failed to respond or defend the claim; the plaintiff's claims were found to be genuine and substantiated, warranting judgment in their favor as prayed.
Court disposition
judgment for the plaintiff by default
Orders
- Defendant to pay principal amount of USD 17,218 (including rent, service charges, VAT, and electricity bills)
- Defendant to give vacant possession of the suit premises
- Defendant to pay interest and costs as claimed
02
Material facts
Parties
National Social Security Fund (NSSF) Board of Trustees
Plaintiff Counsel: Ms ManongiNext Call Technologies
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Principal Amount Awarded: USD 17,218
- Electricity Bills Awarded: TZS 659,145
- VAT Awarded: USD 948
- Interest on Delayed Payment (claimed): USD 3,540
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Judgment on Default
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant is liable for unpaid rent, service charges, VAT, and electricity bills under the tenancy agreement
- 02
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession and costs
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff claims the defendant failed to pay rent, service charges, VAT, and electricity bills as per the tenancy agreement, and seeks payment of the outstanding amounts, vacant possession, and costs.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not appear or file any response despite being duly served with notice.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order VIII Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966
A party who fails to respond to a duly served claim may have judgment entered against them by default.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The defendant was duly served but failed to respond or defend the claim; the plaintiff's claims were found to be genuine and substantiated, warranting judgment in their favor as prayed.
Court disposition
judgment for the plaintiff by default
- Defendant to pay principal amount of USD 17,218 (including rent, service charges, VAT, and electricity bills)
- Defendant to give vacant possession of the suit premises
- Defendant to pay interest and costs as claimed
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 19 March 2003
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 19 March 2003
l, ... i" CIVIL CASJ; FO. 438 OF 2002 NA.'l'ICUAL tlCCIAL s:~CUin'.L'Y FlC:j •••••••••• HJ~INTIFF !'!°'EXT CALL 11':~CllhCLOGIES The Plaintiffs, the Bo.ard of Trustees of the national Social Security Fu...'1d (hSSF),, have filed a plaint a 0 ainst the Respondents, Next .. Call Technologies, claiming, amoncs: other things, the following:- (a) PaJment of. the Princi1Jal amount about U.SD 17~218 (i.e about Tsh.17,872,28Lt), (b) Vaca.J1t pos::;2ssion of the suit premises, and ., The normal interests anc,. costs of the case. under order 7:'J5;5j of tl1e:: -Civil---Pi'ocr.=dure Code ' . ',... --•--",, 1966. -··· .J.--~------ A~~~rd.in,rs to the p:.i.aint- the ,1ai;1tifi' 1 s case is ttat on 29/3/1~9 1 ) the plaintiff a.,."1.d the Jefendant entered· i11to· a· b!t. year tenancy agreement in which the :pl2..intiff rented. t:1c Defendant an office space of about ? 75 M~ at the plaintiff' .s building situate a l'-'111alirnu Nyerere Pension 'l'ov1er~ (A copy 0f the L:ase ag:teem0nt 1,ias"accordin~.:ly atached to the pl~nt) ~ _Th,e agreed mcnthly rent was USD 15 per square metre p;I..us .,--.,. .. ._._,,... ,._,, • --•oo.--<>-l._.,,'Ulol ~vic-.e eharges of USD 1.5 o:- its equivalent in Tanzania shillings. 'l':1e lea.see also c6nt•ained. a IJrovision for penalty o·( 15~ 1:et··'c.:'ai o:h i.riy"-· ;rent- rernainihg unpaid· for 30 days from' tb.0 day. :when th:e1 rerit• iJe·camc · due· to·
·aetue.l' day of, 1,ayu1ent. The -r;laintifrs allege that·· the defendant failed. to pay the said· rent and service char'ges for 33 months tmital]Lni USD 12.. 760 ~,;ntl:eh·· <''arry the· interesb of ,19(, rer day for the delayed p~ent )rlhich :r.otals USD 3, .5-W. l l ~., •. ). 2 The plaintiffs also claim. the usual Value A:iJed Toz ( VAT) of USD 948 to be added to the above said amount o It is furt:J.er claimed that for all that. period the defendant has also f2tile( ·co 92:y electricity bills amounting to Tshs.659, 1+5;.11/=o \·Jhen th1:)se curoi;.nts are added up, we get the principal a~ount cf USD 17,218. The Defenc1.ant was given an O;):;,ortunity to defend th,: case. Notice was duly served on them on 1'1/2/200;,. Howeve1·, up to the date fixed for mention (1L~/3/2003, the defendants did not ta..."ke the required response. It is upon this expiry of the prescribed. period that counsel for the plaintiffsi Ms Manongi, prays for this court to award the reliefs prayed for in terms of Rule 2 (2) of Order mfi of C.1}0Ce ·. I¾tyrng_ ·satisfied myself that !he claims by the :pliantiff are sen"4ene, and having e~tablished that the d~fencl.arrt. \,1as .r;:;iv0n .clue ........... notice to defend but he di~ not avail himself of this opparturii ty,: I .hereby enter judgment and decree for the plaintiff as pray0;d. Delivered in court, this eigh day of April 2003, in thic presence of _i:l1e applJcant. i \ ,, Eol; .E o lfil.Sfi:;[,. tTtJDG1 19/3/JC03 '
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.