KATOMA SAFARI CAMP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA SUB-REGISTRY OF GEITA AT GEITA CIVIL CASE NO. 1343 OF 2025 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND ................................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ................................................................. 2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS EVARIST WELLE NDIKILO T/A KATOMA SAFARI CAMP………………...DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date of last Order: 11/03/2025 Date of Judgment: 11/03/2025 K. D. MHINA, J. This is a summary suit involving the compulsory contribution of employees between the National Social Security Fund and the Attorney General [hereinafter to be referred to as the first and second plaintiff, respectively] against Evarist Welle Ndikilo t/a Katoma Safari Camp [hereinafter to be referred to as the defendant] filed under Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2019] read together with section 74A (2) of the National Social Security Fund Act [Cap 50 R.E 2018]. 1 Brief facts which led to the institution of the suit are as follows; In accordance with the law establishing the 1st plaintiff, the defendant is required each month to make its compulsory contribution and that of its employees at the rate of 10% and 10%, respectively, making a total of 20% of the (member) employee's wage. However, despite the fact that the defendant's obligation by law to remit members' contributions each month has failed, neglected, ignored and defaulted to remit the members' contributions to the 1st plaintiff for some of the months and delayed remittance in some of the months, which attracted imposition of the penalty. The defendant's breach of its statutory obligations has led to the default remittance of members' principal contributions, amounting to TZS. 5,982,000/=, which sum continues to accrue as long as it remains due and penalties of TZS. 4,131,700/= (covering various periods between November 2014 to June 2024), totalling TZS.10,113,700/= That breach caused, as required by the law, the 1st plaintiff, on numerous occasions, to demand the defendant perform the said statutory 2 obligation on remittance of members' contributions, but the efforts proved futile. The above facts triggered the plaintiffs' filing of this suit under a summary procedure to seek relief from this court. On 20 January 2024, this Court ordered the defendant to be served with a summons and to file an application for leave to appear and defend the suit (if he wishes) within 21 days, as per the law. The defendant was duly served on 11 February 2025. In the plaint, the plaintiffs prayed for; i. The Defendant to be ordered to pay the sum of TZS.10,113,700/=being un-remitted members' contributions and penalties due and payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. ii. Interest on the decretal sum at the Court rate of 7% from the date of delivery of Judgment until the same shall be fully satisfied; iii. Cost of and incidental to the filing of the suit; and iv. Any other and further relief as this Honorable Court shall deem fit and just to grant. 3 Today, when the suit was called on for hearing, Mr. William, the State Attorney for the plaintiffs, informed the Court that the defendant failed to file leave to appear and defend the suit after the expiration of 21 days. Therefore, he prayed for summary judgment under the provisions of Order XXXV Rule 2 (2) (a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 of the Revised Edition, 2019, read together with section 74A (2) of the National Social Security Fund Act [Cap 50 R.E 2018]. However, he informed the Court that after the suit was filed, the defendant paid TZS. 3,274,000/= out of the unremitted amount of TZS.5,982,000/=. Also, he informed this Court that the parties had agreed on the remaining TZS. 2,708,000/= shall be paid at the end of March 2025. Also, they agreed that when the defendant paid in full the unpaid contributions, he would be entitled to request a waiver to pay penalties. Mr. Mhina, State Attorney, also did not “press” for costs of the suit. Therefore, he urged this court to consider in the summary judgment what was agreed by the parties. From the above, the law is clear that when the defendant is served with the summons to file leave to appear and defend the suit but fails, the 4 plaintiff, in terms of Order XXXV rule 2 (2) (a) and (b) of the CPC, is entitled to judgment as prayed for in the plaint. See: CRDB Bank Limited vs. John Kagimbo Lwamhagaza [2002] TLR 117. Therefore, in terms of Order XXXV Rule 2 (2) (a) and (b) of the CPC and section 74A (2) of the NSSF Act, Cap 50, I enter summary judgment for the Plaintiffs and proceed to decree as follows; a. The 1st plaintiff is entitled to the total payment of TZS. 6,839,700/= from the defendant, which includes unremitted members' contributions (TZS. 2,708,000/=) plus accumulated penalties (TZS 4,131,700/=). b. The defendant shall pay a total of TZS. 2,708,000/= remaining unremitted members’ contributions) at the end of March 2025. c. After full payment of unpaid/ unremitted members’ contributions, the defendant shall be entitled to request from the 1st plaintiff a waiver to pay penalties of TZS. 4,131,700/=. The summary judgment is entered in that way with no orders to costs. It is so ordered. 5 K. D. MHINA JUDGE 11/03/2025 Court: The right to appeal explained to the parties. K. D. MHINA JUDGE 11/03/2025 6