N

,~T DAR ••~A.A,..·-------••::..., • ES SAL/1AM Mme. crvrL c1,.mm Noc 62 OF 1984 Tf~NDl'.J.J~ cormrn HO'El:;;IS LTD APPLICJ\.NT Versus 1 o CITY DI:.l.1'"GC'IOR · 1ST RSSFONDli::I~T 2. Ti'.NZi,NIA Bl:Js!Efr[E3 LTD. • •••• CO' a C .....

RULING ~------•-~,-#--•-- ----

KYANDO ·•-• ::.,_ ..J:·-· This is an application for an order of certiorari 1 = removing i.J.,.to the High Court and quashi.11g a decision of the City Director, Acting e.s Assistant Frice Commissioner, made on or about the 27th October, 4984, directing the second respondent not to supply a.'1d / or ~ell beer to the a.pplict:>.nt company':., TherE, is also a prayer for the cor::ts of the· application. The application is by Cha'!lber Summons f)upported by an affidavit of Thadeus s. Masawe. '.:.here is also an accompanying Statement, wherei.'1 the grounds for the application have been set out. The respondents have filed counter-affidavits., According to the Affidavits the applicant ran a bar and Restaurant business a.t premises situate on Plots Naso 88, 89 · and 90, Sisi kwe. Sisi, Manzese i-\rea, Kinondoni District, Dar .es Sc>..laam. He took over the business from its previous owner, Y/S Friends Corner I..l'J.Il in 1983. Since the date of commencement of the business the applic~nt was always selling beer solely produced,:_ supplied. and. sold by the sec~nd respondent ;:until the 27th October, 4984, when the applicant sudde:r.ly by :notice in writing dated the same day, was informed of tbe respondent's decision to stop further supplies of beer to the applicant on allegations that the applice.nt had been used to ,c;elling beer 8.t its bw:;iness premises over the retail price fixed

in respect thereof.;, ·· Tne respondents d.o not deny stopping suppli~s of beer to the applicant., Tne decision ,~a.s taken by the first respond_ent which then inst~cted the second respondent to impkment it (the decis1on). According to the counter ... affida.vi t sworn by Pauline Kasonda. on· behelf of the City Director-, the :first respondent decision.to stop_supplying beer to the applicant wac:; taken because th~ applicant sold the beer s~pplied to hi.~ above the fbred :pricese Kason~a says that on 24/11/84 the applicant was found 1iby one Inspector Abdallah selling beer at his .. 0 • • G •• /2 pre,ises over the retail prices fixed in respect thereof, tmd ,..,hen he was asked to sign· the forms compounding the offence he refu:e:,ed to d.o so as required by law • .i In paragraph 3 of her counter - affidavit Ka_sonda sta\es that on 13/11/84 there was a meeting of the Price Commissioner's Office in which the main ''agenda" was to discuss the beer black market prices e.nd ways of combating itc1 She says one of the rec6rrm1ehde.tion.s made by the Cor.1.mittee was to stop the supply of beer to all those v1ho were to be caught hiking the beer prices, ;·; .::,~d the e.pplicant \'Jas one of the businessmen who were found selli.~ beer above fixed prices 11 • So, according to the first respondent, the decision to stop supplying beer to the applicant was taken because of failure on the

part of the applica.nt to comply with price regulations., 'Ihe applic~mt denies ·this. It is clear from the affidavits tha.t the decisions :impugned by this applir,ation was taken by the first respondent, the City Director of the City Council of Dar es Salaam. llie eecond respondent did not take the decision and he could not in my view, being only a Company, h!'!ve taken :i.t. This application as against it, the second respondent, therefore is missconceived and it is dismiszed, '.t1ith costs. ft.s for the first respondent, Inspector Abdallah has sworn no affidavit to substantiate the contents of Kasanda 1 s counter-~affidavit. The Counter affide.vi t sworn by Kasanda therefore rem~ins mere hearsays• Kasanda herself does not se.y .she is the one who d'ou.l'.!d th,e applicant selling beer above fixed pric€::s. In other 1:Jords, the counter... affid2v~.t doe.s not effectively answer the applicemt' s cle.ims that the allegations that he sold beer contrary to regulations are not true. It follows that the application has not been sufficiently and effectively opposed by the first respondent e..l'.!d. its decision was without any sound bBnis in la1r, .. I grant the applicant's application and by en order of certiorari I quash and set aside the decision by the first respondent to r-;top supplying or selling beer from the second respondent to the applicant. Tne applicant is a.warded the costs of the application.,