19980507 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN '.rHE HIGH COURT QF TANZANIA --~~· AT Dl'-i.R ES SAiJ\.f.\M. .. CIVIL CASE NOo 6 OF 1997 .. T]E TANi,IJilIA P02/]j\L F,,1\NK •. ; 0 0 •• 0 .f.l.PPLlCANT,A \TERSUS. . "",.1' . • TANZANIA TELSCOMUNICATION.S co L'J:'Do O ~ o O .HT::SFOND?.~N'.ro R U LI IN ,......_ ,~~ G. , , _ ' ~ " .Jo ,BUBESHI _ ' The plaintiff has filed a cluim against the defepdant.·praying for the· ·i . following orders - that this court revoke the :bransfer of plots~ and 9 &'1.las.m alcng Ohio Street, Darees . ' to the d2fenfant • an order declaring the pl8.intiff the rightful. treansferocr and in the clternative but without prejudice •··. compensation be awarded to the plaintiff for 'tho expenses incurreJ by th(, plaintiff in prelimi:::nry development of the plots. To that the·dofondant, through thGir advocate Dro Mwaikusa, hav€ raised some prelimino.ry points i'n b.w. They submit that the plaintiff has no cause of action end that they h2.ve been wronglyo ,Joined in that they ·nev,:;r acquired. ''· ths land r:1.s trustee or ugcnt of tho plaintiff. ,:,, ' . th cy. ' ~ ont··end. t'nci.t .r ur 'c.tH::r this court hD.s no jurisdictfon to gro..nt the reliefs sought. To substnntintc his arguments Dr., Mwaikuse, o.rguE,d th,'.it the lru1d in dispute was formerly held by the Tanzania posts and 'I'elecommunicntion Corporation, h~)reiry2.fter, The TPI'C nnd that it ,was hot o.n 2-sr:;Gt of . · Tar:izDilio.. postal Savings Bank. Th:-it th:,o TPI'C did not hold lo.nd in trust for the plaintiff ns cl::i.im0d in IJGra· 14 ,of thG plnint" Thc,t th6 'I':FTC -carried out savings bri.nk S(=rviccs even before the r,1.'.J.intiff c2.rne into existence and those wer,➔ dcine on behalf of the Gc,vcernment cmd not on behalf of any entityo That even when the 'l'Pl'C was d.issol ved the assets vested in the TTCL, TPC one: the 'l'clecornmunicution Comrnissiono The defendant clnims that tho .. 2- plaintiff has not been m'.)ntioned~ That th,; plaintiff has heven OHlli:_J the suit lr,.nd z:no. h,_,nce has nc locus st:md: On rf\VCcation of th-:-u1.Efer of lo.nd tc the dofc,ndai.'1t, the defendant claim tha.t th,= suit laYJd was· vested into them by c;r,erat:ion of lnw hence this court Mr. Hjindo for the plaintiff clis not ,'lgrei::. 'Ee clnims that by virtue cf . the provisions of Section 22 of Act ll of 1991, the suit prc.:perty W::3.S vest8d in the plaintiff. Another m,.J.in fep.turs !o which they hase th 0:ir cl:dm is 1 r Annexture C to the plnint. This is the puilding permit that W2.S granted to the 'I'PI'C for the purposes of building the he::;.d. office of the plaintiff's bank •. , :fr. Mjindo .. seems to consedo that r.tfter creation of the, plaintiff through Act ll of 1991 - on 1/3/92, the si1i t land was not immediately trcmsferred to th,::m. Tht.:,t the Transition Manag-~ment Committoe did not recommend fairly anci thnt there was a misdirection made during the trm1sfor or registration of the title of the suit property~ 'fhe pb.intiff submit th.J.t they Jmve proprietor::,, legal interest to defend - hence 'lhey' hnve locus • . . On ,th€:: courts jurisciict-icn thc-y si(tmit th:,.t this ccurt has unlimited J·urisdiction to 0ntertain the suit and grm1t the prayed for orders. I h-S.vc had time to _study ths plai1?-~, in particular 12f-'>1:~ 4-,7,8,9. J have ·-· . , ' cited these pe.rngrnphs . tc ste.rt with. Ac:i.reful reading of these pc.re.graphs clenrly indicate thc,t the plaintiff is complaining that the suit plots ought to lw.-'-:e: ro,::m r£;sted in the. plaiAtiff but .were no.t 0 • Now the issue here; i~ this:_ are tlle suit plots .vested into }~lk plp.intiff, .. .--, the ;1:nswer to this is in the ! negative rmd •the plaintiff se8ms tc b(, aware of this situation 0 1:· Para 10 of the plaint blameF, the TP & TC anc. - its a.ssigns for hnyi~_ failed tc discharge the statutory obli 6 o.tions inposed on th,.:;m under Section 22 of Act, J..1- ,?f: -~~191._ , .Jiow1 itllat .• ~r.e these ~-tSs~ts th4t, rwve. now bee.11. r,e:3ted... in, ... t_hc pl:::intiff -. . , . .• , suit '--·-.. ~?re. . t)),,c: . prcperti,:;s .. . also incJ.~d~tl'? The. defendant says - no. J'his court is net: "Satisfied 'qy t;l1c: plaintiff's argument th2ct the suit proper.tics wGre expres],y s_L1.ted to tnmsfsr. to the plaintiff in _term? of .• Section 22. In terms of parngraphs ll, 12, 13,15, of the. plaint .the plaintiff . ,l. • . • • • • . • is clearly complaining _agc).tnst the Transition .l'l~agemt;nt Coriunittee. However the Composition of tbe Committee and how it execuh,s its duty is y.,;r0vided for - 3 under Section 6 of Act 21 of 1993. The defe!ldant 1 it ~1ould appear, had no say in eith~1r the composition and how· the committee should do its worke And . i in terms of th0 provisions of subsection 3 (c) of Sedtion 6, the Committee shall 11 (c) cleal with a..YJ.y residual property, assets and linbilities of the former Ccrpor2.tion in any ma.nnor that it shall be deemed expedient" There is no statutory provisions which clearly rest the suit property in the plaintiffo I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has established th8.t it h,s.s bgal. interest t'o prot0ct. Assurr;ing arguendc: that the p1aintiff complaint had to be directed 2-gainst the Transition Committee, as some. :p paraeraphs in the pla.int do indicate, then the r<c)m,.cdy .does not lie in suing the defendant. I think there other avenues the plaintiff o~mld hnve used to obtain,the rolief sought. Further, in accordo.ncc of paragraphs 19,20 7 21 the plaintiff seems tc blame oth,:::r. pres()ns for vesting the suit plots to the de fondant. Can this court therefcre at this juncture hold that Ui,,2 plaintiff has estnblished n cause of action o.ginst. the defenda.'1t? I think noto , I am inclined to agree to the subrni,ssicns made by ::Jr a Mwaikusa. On the reasons which I have, I ;tope, endcvoured to explain, I uphold ) the prolimim.ry obje:ctions raised by the defendant and reject the plail'}t under O 7 R ll (a)e Delivered before AoG• Bubcshi Mwaikusc, and Mjindo JUDGE 7/5/1998.