20151229 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 50 OF 2008 TANGA PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD ........................................ PLAINTIFF V. COMMISSIONER GENERAL TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY .......................... DE FEN DANT RULING Date of last Order : ..... ....... 22/12/2015 Date of Ruling: ..... ....... 29/12/2015 Shangwa, J. On 15th October, 2015, I struck out this back log case due to the absence of the parties who had expressed strong intention to settle the dispute out of court and 1 strongly promised to file a deed of settlement in July or August this year. On 13th November, 2015, learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Ngimba filed a Memorandum of review of this court's order to strike out the suit and prayed the court to reverse its order or set it aside. In his Memorandum of Review, learned counsel for the Applicant raised two grounds for his prayer namely:- 1. That the court made an error apparent on the face of the record by striking out Civil Case No. 50 of 2008 on grounds that the parties have settled the matter out of court without the parties submission on the same. 2 2. That the court made an error apparent on the face of the record by striking out Civil Case No. 50 of 2008 on grounds of non appearance of the parties on a day not appointed for hearing of the matter. On 10th December, 2015, I ordered that the application be argued by way of written submissions. Learned counsel for the parties did so. In their written submissions, both counsel did not dispute the fact that they had promised the court to settle the dispute between themselves and file a deed of settlement. Also, both counsel did not dispute the fact that on the date the suit was struck out the speed track of this case had once again expired and that no application had been made to extend the same once again. 3 In my opinion, the promise by the parties to settle the matter between themselves out of court is binding on them. Their promise made this court not to hear their case within the speed track which had been fixed twice. On the date I struck out the suit between the parties, it had been pending in court for over seven years ago and no serious steps were taken by the plaintiff to prosecute the same. For the first time, the suit was scheduled for hearing on 23 rd October, 2009 and 26th October, 2009. Counting from 23 rd October, 2009 to 15th October, 2015 when the suit was struck out, it is a period of about six years. During the said period, the plaintiff's counsel did not bring any witness to prove its case. The court's time was simply wasted by the plaintiff's prayers to adjourn the case for hearing and sleep well 4 prayers to settle the matter out of court. Such prayers are on the face of this court's record. I now wonder why counsel for the plaintiff is blaming this court for its action of striking out the suit. What I think is that counsel for the plaintiff is not serious in any of his pleadings to restore this suit to hearing as indicated in his written submissions in support of the application for review. Looking at the grounds listed in his Memorandum of Review, it will be seen that counsel for the Applicant /plaintiff is calling upon this court to constitute itself as a Court of Appeal and revise its own decision. I am sorry to say that this court cannot commit such a grave error. For these reasons, I reject this application with costs. 5 A.Shangwa JUDGE the presence of Miss Consolata for the Respondent holding brief of Mr. Ngimba for the Applicant. A.Shangwa JUDGE 29/12/2015 6