19951116 TZHC Dar es Salaam

r ,I .,.- ...",'i J~:. ~ ~, 't.· ... ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZA.NIA DAR ES SALA.AM DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DAR E.S SALAAM -· --- ---•. ···--- -·. ··-·-·· . MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION N0.35 OF 1995 THE BANK OF TANZANIA • • • APPLICANT v.SRSUS 1. THE MINISTER OF LABOUR AND YOUTH . DEVELOPMENT RESPONDENTS 2.ovmEN- KASANJA .. BUBESHI I J.· RULING --~.,,,.,__.,. __ .................... ·In course of hearing this application for leave, the · · ··is1;; : arid . ~nd . re_spondents, . ·hereafter the .respondents, have filed two preliminary o~jections, namely, that the . . . . ' ) application is incompetent for being time barred, and secondly tha~ public_ la.w remedies ·cannot issue against a prj,y?te indivi~ua~, to wit the 2nd respondent. On the first ground the respondent.s are arguing, that · the application was __filed on 24/8/1995 while the e'\leht • · 't.ooK prace . . complained of.L..2671/1995.- .That Section 18 (3) of Act No.55 of 1968 provides· for ~he ~tatutory period of six months within which.to ,file for such an application. That 'by .fii~ri{s the application on 24/8/1995, tpe ~ame is out ~f time by about 30 days. That no exfens:i:o~, of time has been s-ought and granted in thi.s respect, Mr:,_ Kamhc{ has therefore prayed for the dismissal of.the application. Again· he has addE;d that even ~ssuming the applicant ), became aware of the decision on 8/3/1995~ a date d~ubted by the respondent, the applicant should have filed the application before 27/7/i995. On ground two, the respondents submission is that the application for prerogative orders cannot lie against individuals except public bodies - See CLIVE_LEWI3 on "Judie ial Remedies in Public Law 11 , 1992 London and DAVID FOULKES - Introduction to Administrative Law, 11 4th Ed. Lcmdon 1976. Mr.• Mkamba .-t~~1i:1;s3~r.1iss-ion wi tb '-a }:iray~: 2 ( for the d-~s.n4s$al ·on grcuncls- of b-ei-ng--f-r±vol'ous-~-·~ In their response, the applicant concede that the decision complained of was made on 26/1/1995 and was notified on 8/3/1995. The applicant is therefore arguing " 2 that the Labour Commissioner contributed to the delay~ - The applicant has referred this court to. the decision of Lugakingira, J (a·s he then _was) in the ca·se of P.· ·.3. -SHIRIMA v KAMATI YA ULINZI NA U.3A1"AMA 1· WILAYA YA SINGIDA and two OTHERS (1983) TLR. 375 I have_ taken time to read the decision referred to.me by the applicant •. However I hasten to say that I see no relevance with the matter at hand. The applicant is suppos-ed to advance reasons on their delay to file the application within the stutory_ period.• I have considered the objections raised by the respondents and I am inclined to agree that they have merit.· In sum·, I uphold the same .and dismiss· the application fop being filed out of time. __ J}/• ..1) ,. J'i , I 1,t •I,·- 1- ,, - - - 1l-i\..(_)/,,AQt~Ji,::A_..\, Delivered bef o're !L G. BUBESHI· Msele_m for the .4pp:Li,cant .and JUDGE Ma~aba- for the ,Re.sponde:tJt --- 16/11/9~: