Summary Judgment NSSF vs RUTA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA GEITA SUB REGISTRY AT GEITA CIVIL CASE NO. 1332 OF 2025 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND…….…………..…………..….……….…..1ST PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………..………...……2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS RUTTA STEWART MUKULASI T/A MUJUMUZI SECONDARY SCHOOL……….………..…………..DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGEMENT Date of last Order: 14/02/2025 Date of Judgement: 18/02/2025 MWAKAPEJE, J.: The Plaintiffs herein, by way of summary procedure outlined in Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33, R.E 2019, initiated this suit against the Defendant seeking the following orders, as I quote in verbatim: 1. The Defendant to be ordered to pay the sum of Tshs. 14,541,000 (Tanzanian Shillings Fourteen Five Hundred Forty-One Thousand) being unremitted members' contributions and penalties due and payable to Plaintiff by Defendant as per paragraph 10 hereinabove. Page 1 of 7 2. 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; 3. Cost of and incidental to the filing of the suit; and 4. Any other and further relief as this Honorable Court shall deem fit and just to grant. Before addressing the substance of the matter, it is essential to recount the facts that have led to the present suit, as delineated in the plaint. The defendant was enrolled as a contributing employer member of the 1st plaintiff, holding a Membership Certificate of Registration Number 1007072, as evidenced by annexure "NSSF-1". Pursuant to the governing law of the 1st plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to make mandatory monthly contributions, both on behalf of itself and its employees, at a rate of 10% each, totalling 20% of the employee's wages It is alleged that, notwithstanding this legal obligation, the defendant has failed, neglected, or defaulted in remitting the members' contributions to the 1st plaintiff on a monthly basis, resulting in delayed payments that have incurred penalties. The facts further indicate that the defendant's failure to remit the members' contributions to the 1st plaintiff has deprived its employees (the plaintiffs' members) of their entitled pension benefits upon retirement, death, or other exits from the scheme. Page 2 of 7 Moreover, it is revealed that the defendant has violated its statutory duties and defaulted in remitting the members' statutory contributions amounting to Tshs. 8,950,000 (Eight Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand) as the outstanding principal members' contributions for the period between January 2019 and June 2024. This amount continues to accumulate as long as it remains unpaid, along with penalties totalling Tshs. 5,591,000 (Five Million Five Hundred Ninety-One Thousand) for the same period. Consequently, the 1st plaintiff's total claim against the defendant amounts to Tshs. 14,541,000 (Tanzanian Shillings Fourteen Million Five Hundred Forty-One Thousand), representing the outstanding principal members' contributions and penalties, which continue to accrue until settled. As a result of the defendant's breach and non-compliance with its statutory obligations to remit the members' contributions, the Plaintiffs have repeatedly demanded compliance to no avail. To substantiate the claimed amount, the Plaintiffs have included in the complaint various documents such as copies of the Certificates of Registration and registration details confirming the defendant's membership with the 1st plaintiff, inspection reports, a schedule of outstanding contributions and penalties, exit meeting reports and demand letters. These documents are Page 3 of 7 deemed to be part of the court's records. It is on these grounds that the Plaintiffs have put forth the prayers as outlined above. When the case was called for the hearing on 14/02/2025, the Plaintiffs were represented by Mr William Mhina, the learned State Attorney. However, the defendant was absent and failed to make an appearance before the Court. During his submissions, Mr Mhina apprised this Court that the defendant had not lodged any application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit. He, therefore, implored the Court to proceed by issuing a summary judgment against the defendant in accordance with Order XXXV of the CPC read together with section 74A(2) of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) Act, Cap 50, R.E. 2018. Having considered the facts and submissions herein above, I now proceed to determine this suit accordingly. It is a well-settled legal principle that in summary proceedings under Order XXXV Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33, if the defendant fails to obtain leave to appear and defend, the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted, leading to summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff. This principle is designed to promote judicial efficiency by preventing defendants from raising frivolous defences that could unnecessarily delay the resolution of cases involving liquidated demands, Page 4 of 7 promissory notes, and other clear monetary obligations as stipulated under Order XXXV Rule 1. In the case of CRDB Bank Limited vs. John Kagimbo Lwambagaza [2002] TLR 117, it was stated that: “The purpose of Order XXXV: Summary Procedure is to enable a Plaintiff to obtain Judgement expeditiously where the Defendant has in effect no substantial defense to the suit and prevent the Defendant from employing delaying tactics and, in the process, postpone the day of reckoning. I am of the settled view that order XXXV is self- contained in so far as it relates to suits stipulated thereunder.” Furthermore, it is trite law that the reliefs sought in a summary suit must strictly adhere to those permissible under summary procedure. These suits are tailored for specific categories of claims, such as those pertaining to liquidated demands, promissory notes, bills of exchange, and other evident monetary obligations outlined in Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Cap. 33; see the case of Prosper Paulo Massawe & Others vs Access Bank Tanzania Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2014) [2021] TZCA 321 (22 July 2021). From the foregoing, the question now is whether this present suit falls within the kind of suits stipulated under the summary procedure. Mr Mhina prayed for this Court to consider it as such under Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Act (CPA) as read together with Section 74A (2) of the Page 5 of 7 NSSF Act, Cap 50 R.E. 2018, to enter a summary judgment against the defendant. Section 74A (2) of the NSSF Act provides that: “(2) Every contribution and additional contributions due to the Fund may be recovered by a summary suit under order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code at any time within twelve years after the date on which it is due." [Emphasis supplied] This provision, similar to section 18(1) of the same Act, emphasises that the recovery of members' contributions is a specialised legal process incorporating summary procedures under Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It affirms that unpaid contributions are statutory obligations enforceable through expedited legal mechanisms. Consequently, as long as the present claim pertains to a monetary obligation owed to the 1st Plaintiff, it falls within the purview of summary procedure, allowing for prompt enforcement without unnecessary delays. Upon a thorough review of the factual matrix, documentary evidence, relevant legal provisions, and established legal principles, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have presented clear and compelling evidence supporting their claims. They have met the requisite threshold for summary judgment in the circumstances. Consequently, summary judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiffs, granting the following reliefs: Page 6 of 7 (1) The defendant is ordered to pay the 1st Plaintiff the sum of Tshs. 14,541,000 (Tanzanian Shillings Fourteen Five Hundred Forty-One Thousand) being unremitted members' contributions and penalties due and payable to Plaintiff by Defendant; (2) Defendant to pay the 1st Plaintiff interest thereof at the Court's rate of 7% per annum from the date of delivery of the judgment to the date of full recovery; and (3) The Plaintiffs shall recover the costs arising from the suit. It is so ordered. Right to appeal explained. DATED at GEITA this 18th day of February 2025. G.V. MWAKAPEJE JUDGE Page 7 of 7