registered trustees of roman catholic of sumbawanga vs perpetua visulo others 2014 tzhc 2350 17 february 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT SUMBWAWANGA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2012 (From Original Land Case No. 2 of 2012 in the High Court of Sumbawanga) REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ROMAN CATHOLIC OF SUMBAWANGA APPLICANT / VERSUS \ PERPETUA VISULO JOSEPH VISULO RENATUS VISULO TIZO VISULO RESPONDENTS MAXIMINE CHAMTEPA BASHIRITI CHAMTEPA 23rd December, 2013 & 17th February, 2014 RULING MWAMBEGELE. J.: This is an application for temporary injunction filed by the Registered Trustees of Roman Catholic. It is made under Order XXXVII Rule 1 (1) and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 of the Revised Edition, 2002 and any other enabling provision of law. It is supported by an affidavit of one Cietus Kamande; Chairman of the Roman Catholic Church of Kate Parish. The applicant, mainly, prays that this court be pleased to order temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, assignees and any person in their name to enter in the disputed land pending determination of the main suit. The application was argued before me on 23.12.2013 during which the applicant had the services of Mr. Chambi, learned counsel and all respondents appeared in person and unrepresented. Pegging his arguments on the affidavit in support of»the application, it was the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the continued use of the land threatens soil erosion as the same was reserved for planting trees. On the part of the respondents, laypersons, except for the sixth who stated that the land will not be destroyed by erosion as there are ■r enough trees and grass to protect it, they did no more than argue that the disputed land belongs to them and therefore it will be unfair to stop them occupying it. I have gone through the affidavit in support of the application. It is deposed to therein that the respondents have become a threat to officers of the applicant who are attacked once they visit the disputed land. It is also deposed to that the land will be eroded thereby reducing its value. I think the reasons as contained in the affidavit in support of the application are quite sufficient to allow this court make an intervention. If the respondents attack the officers of the applicant, it is likely that peace 2 \ .L : it between them is about to break and this court will not sit back and see that situation happen. It is in public interest that its citizens must live in peace and harmony and any act that leads to their disruption must outrightly be prevented. But before I pen off, I wish to comment on the use of the phrase "any other enabling provisions of law" used by the applicant in support of the application. This court has observed on several occasions that the phrase "any other enabling provisions of law" is now meaningless, outdated, irrelevant and an unnecessary embellishment. In Janeth Mm ari Vs International School o f Tanganyika and Another, Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 50 of 2005 (unreported), this court had an opportunity to make an observation on the phrase in the following terms: "This song, 'any other enabling provisions of the law' is meaningless, outdated and irrelevant. The court cannot be moved by unknown provisions of the law conferring that jurisdiction. That law must therefore be known. Blanket embellishments have no relevance to the law nor do they add any value to the prayers to the court." (Emphasis not mine). t In yet another case; Elizabeth Steven & Another Vs Attorney * General, Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 82 of 2005 (also unreported) it was stated as follows: j i "The phrase any other provision of law is now useless embellishment, the law is now settled." To properly move the court, it is imperative that proper provisions of the law under which the application is made must cited. The court cannot be moved by unknown provisions of the law to act on an application. For the reasons state earlier, this application therefore is meritorious. Subject to the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, the respondents, their agents, assignees and any person in their name, are restrained from entering in the disputed land pending determination of the main suit. Given the circumstances of this case, no f order is made as to costs. i DATED at SUMBAWANGA this 17th day of February, 2014. .> ♦ J. C. M. MWAMBEGELE JUDGE