omega ministries church of all nations versus registered trustees of salem holy spirit church 2023 tzhclandd 16738 24 july 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO. 166 OF 2023 OMEGA MINISTRIES CHURCH OF ALL NATIONS PLAINTIFF VERSUS REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SALEM HOLY SPIRIT CHURCH l^tDEFENDANT REUBEN JAMES MWAMBOLA 2"° DEFENDANT AUGUSITNO MALINDA 3"® DEFENDANT FRED JAMES MWAMBOLWA 4™ DEFENDANT RULING Date ofLast Order:28.06.2023 Date ofRuling: 24.07.2023 T. N. MWENEGOHA,J. I have two objections In need of my determination. Both are from the 2"^ to 4^ defendants as follows; - 1. That, the plaintiff has no locusstandito sue. 2. That, the plaintiff has no cause of auction against the 2"^, 3'"^ and 4^^ defendants. Hearing of the objections was by written submissions. Advocate Mukhtary Hassan, appeared for the 2"^ to 4"^ defendants while the plaintiff enjoyed the legal services of Advocate John Seka. Arguing in favour of the objection, Mr. Hassan Insisted that, the plaintiff has no locus standl to sue in this case, rather Its registered Board of Trustees, as provided under Section 8(10) of the Trustee's Incorporation Act, Cap 31, R. E. 2002. In this case, there Is no way the plaintiff can sue In her name as she has no legal personality. The position was stated In Registered Trustees of Catholic Diocese of Arusha versus The Board of Trustee Simanjiro Pastoral Education Trust, Civil Case No. 3/1998, High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. On the 2"^ objection, the counsel for the 2"^ to 4^ defendants maintained that, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the 2""^ to 4*^ defendants owing to her lack of locus standl to sue in this case. He cited the case of Lujuna ishubi Ballonzi versus The Registered Trustees of Chama Cha Mapinduzi(1996)TLR 203. Replying to the submissions by the counsel for the 2^^^ to 4^^ defendants, Mr. Seka for the plaintiff, was of the view that, the objection fall short of a preliminary objection so to speak. The same needs evidence and arguments to prove whether It is proper to be registered under the societies Act of Trustees Incorporation Act. Therefore, the objection goes against the rules given in Mukisa Biscuits Company versus Westend Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696. The same arguments were also given In the 2"^ objection. Mr. Seka contended that. It requires evidence and arguments to prove that, the plaintiff has no cause of action against the 2"'^ to 4^ defendants. I have given the arguments by both counsels, for and against the objection, the consideration they deserve. The issue for consideration is whether the objections have merits or not. starting with the objection, that the plaintiff lacks locus standl to sue the defendants in this case. The reason was given to the effect that, the plaintiff is not a body corporate, rather the Registered Trustees of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's counsel insisted that, the plaintiff is a registered Church, under the Societies Act, therefore she has a locus to- sue, otherwise, the objection itself is not on point of law, rather it is on facts. Indeed, the plaintiff above mentioned is a Church, a registered religious entity as she calls herself under the paragraph of the plaint. Therefore, I agree with the plaintiff's counsel that, the same was registered under the Societies Act. Obvious, being a Church, the plaintiff operates as a charitable organization, unless she is not. That being the case, she is required by the law to have trustees. If she has or not, that is not our main concern. However, as far as the issue of locus standi is concerned, the Church does not have one. It is on the Registered Trustee(s) of the said Church. Such Trustee(s), are the one with the legal personality upon incorporation under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Trustees Incorporations Act, Cap 318, R. E- 2002. For quick reference, I will reproduce the provisions of section 8 as hereunder; - (1) "Upon the grant ofa certificate under subsection (1) ofsection 5. the trustee or trustees shaii become a body corporate by the name described in the certificate, and shaii have (b)power to sue and be sued in such corporate name''. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff lacks the powers to sue or be sued in any case, let alone the present one. I therefore find the objection to have merits, owing to the reasons I have wondered to give herein above. The same is sustained. That being the case, I will disregard the discussion of the 2"^ objection. My findings given for the objection, are capable of disposing the entire case. In the event, I struck out the suit with costs. Ordered accordingly. T.^^r^WENEGOHA JUDGE 24/07/2023