THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF BARAZA KUU LA JUUMUIYA

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA CIVIL CASE NO. 000024891 OF 2024 THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF BARAZA KUU LA JUUMUIYA NA TAASISI ZA KIISLAMU TANZANIA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. ABDULSALAAM OMARY HASSAN 2. AMIR ZUBER LUHENDE 3. MAWAZO HUSEIN SALU 4. HASSAN JUMA MBALA 5. ABDULRAHMAN KHALFAN KANGE 6. OMARY ISSA SURVE 7. HASHIM ALLY TULUGANYA 8. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF RAUDHWA MOSPQUES .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING MATUMA, J, The plaintiff is a registered body corporate in the names; The Registered Trustees of Baraza Kuu la Jumuiya na Taasisi za kiislamu Tanzania is suing the defendants for orders that the defendants be ordered not to lease the premises of the Board of Trustees of the 8th Defendant including the building on Plot No. 69 Block “T” at Fupi Street and thereby ceasing to collect the proceeds thereto till election of members of the Board of Trustees. The plaintiff is also seeking an order against the defendants to submit all Books of Bank Accounts, to surrender land titles, cease operations of the 8th defendant till the election, and costs of the suit. The Defendants having been served with the plaint, lodged their defence in which they raised three points of preliminary objections but one was abandoned at the hearing of such objections. They also raised Counter claims for orders that; the plaintiff’s suit has been instituted without justifiable cause, a declaration that the 1st to 7th Defendants are trustees of the 8th Defendant, the Plaintiff be permanently restrained from interfering the welfare of the 8th Defendant, general damages, costs, and any other reliefs. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Denis Kahangwa learned advocate while the defendants who were present, had the services of Mr. Masoud Mwanaupanga learned advocate. Mr. Mwanaupanga argued the PO relating to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit and locus standi of the plaintiff in this suit. About jurisdiction, the learned advocate submitted that this court has no initial powers to entertain complaints relating to misuse of property of the Registered corporate body and that such powers are vested in the Administrator-General Page. 1 in terms of section 14 (1) of The Trustees Incorporation Act, Cap. 318 R.E. 2002. He also cited the case of Muhammad Rafiki and 11 others versus the AD-hock Committee Sunni Muslim Jamaat Dar es salaam, Civil Case No. 119 of 2012 (HC), and that of The Registered Trustees of Tabasamu Private Secondary School versus Amini Hussein Rukoba and 2 others, Civil Case No.23 of 2017 (HC). Mr. Masoud Mwanaupanga learned advocate further argued that even complaints relating to failure to conduct the election of the trustees must, in terms of section 17 (1) (a) and (2) of the Trustees Incorporation Act, Supra, be referred to the Administrator General in the first instance. He finally argued on this ground that ordinary Courts have no initial jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to the misuse of trustees' properties and affairs relating to the election of members of the trustees or change of leadership. Responding to this objection, Mr. Denis Kahangwa learned advocate, argued that this Court has the requisite jurisdiction because the plaintiff had referred the matter to the Administrator–General but obtained a negative response. On my part, I find that the parties are not at issue that the law requires complaints relating to misuse of properties of the trustees, election of members of the Board and change of leadership must, in the first instance be referred to the Administrator General. That is what is stipulated under section 14 (1) and 17 (1) (a), and (2) of Cap 318 Supra. Under section 14 (1) for instance, the Registrar – General is vested with powers to investigate uses and misuses of the property vested in the Trustees and in case he finds out that there is any misuse, subsection 2 (a) – (f) thereof empowers him to suspend or remove the trustee and any person found in use or misuse of such property, appoint a receiver and manager to take care of the property and run the day to day affairs of the body corporate, freeze the bank account of that body corporate, stop further action by the trustee or trustees in dealing with the property, refer the matter to police for investigation and pursue the trustee or trustees to recover the trust property or seek damages. Section 17(1) (a) and 2 on the other hand empowers the Registrar General to monitor meetings of the body corporate including meetings for election or change of members of the Trustees and in case of Religious bodies corporate, the Religious supreme Authority in Tanzania in accordance to their statutes shall monitor such meetings. Under such provisions, all the plaintiff’s complaints have been taken care and as rightly argued by Mr. Masoud Mwanaupanga learned advocate such complaints must at its initial stages be referred to the Registrar General before seeking redress in ordinary Courts. That was the stance taken by this Court when interpreting the provisions Supra in the two cases cited above. Thus, for instance, in the case of Muhammad Rafiki at page 12 His lordship Justice Juma, as he then was held that complaints of such nature cannot be referred direct to ordinary Courts of law without first being channelled to the relevant Religious supreme Authority and Administrator General. The same stance was taken in the case of the Registered Trustees of Tabasamu Private Secondar School Supra. That being the settled position of the law and undisputed by the parties, the issue now is whether the plaintiff had referred her complaints to the Administrator General and or to any of the Supreme Religious Body/Authority. Mr. Kahangwa learned advocate, argued that the plaintiff had already exhausted such a recourse, and the reference was made to several attached letters to the plaint. On the other hand, Mr. Masoud Page. 2 Mwanaupanga learned advocate stood firm that there was no reference of the complaints to the Administrator General by the plaintiff. My thorough scrutiny of the annexures to the plaint shows that it was individual members of Raudhwa Mosque who made several complaints to Administrator General. Their complaints were worked upon, and guidance to them to resolve the dispute was given, including amendment of the Trustees’ constitution. The plaintiff is an independent corporate body registered in its own name as appears above. I have not seen any correspondence between the plaintiff and the Administrator General in relation to the complaints at hand. What the plaintiff has done is to jump into individual members’ grievances against the 8th to bring this suit without herself having referred the same to the relevant authority as stated Supra. I therefore rule out that this suit is incompetent before this Court for having violated the mandatory provisions of section 14 (1) and 17(1) (a) and 2 of the Trustees Incorporation Act, Cap 318 R.E 2002 Under which ordinary Courts have no initial jurisdictions to deal with complaints relating to misuse of the Trustees’ property and affairs of leadership of a corporate body. This alone could suffice to end up this suit, but I have found it important to determine the second limb of the preliminary objection. Mr. Masoud Mwanaupanga learned advocate contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi in the instant matter. At first, he doubted whether the plaintiff is incorporated to acquire the status of a legal person capable to sue or be Sued. His doubts were due to the fact that the plaint is not annexed with the certificate of incorporation. Mr. Denis Kahangwa learned advocate, although admitted that such certificate was not attached to the plaint, he submitted that the plaintiff is dully registered and produced a Copy of the certificate of Incorporation for the Court to satisfy itself with the plaintiff's status. Since I did not see the law mandating that a certificate of Incorporation must at all times when the body corporate sues or is sued be attached to the plaint, I accepted to inspect the certificate produced at the time of hearing such a PO. Having inspected it, I am satisfied that the plaintiff is duly registered as from 21st June,1993. The objection on locus in respect of registration thus fails. But locus standi of the plaintiff was also argued in the other way. Mr. Masoud Mwanaupanga learned advocate argued that the plaint clearly shows that the property alleged to be misused belongs to the 8th Defendant and the plaintiff do not own such properties nor she has shown any interest in the said property which is owned by a different registered body. On his part, Mr. Denis Kahangwa argued that the attached constitution to the plaint shows that the 8th Defendant mandated the plaintiff to have supervisory powers over its properties and or affairs. In his rejoinder, Mr. Masoud learned advocate, contended that the attached constitution does not belong to the 8th Defendant. Since the parties contested the attached constitution, I inquired from the plaintiff to tell the Court whether the attached constitution in the plaint is really the constitution of the 8th Defendant and whether the same is registered to govern the welfare of the 8th Defendant. Mr. Denis Kahangwa learned advocate sought leave to invite his client, Mr. Rajabu Kiwela Mbalamwezi who acts for the plaintiff, to explain on the matter. Mr. Rajabu Kiwela Mbalamwezi conceded that the 8th Defendant is registered by a different constitution, which is not the one at hand. He, however, explained that the constitution attached to the plaint is genuine and registered by the plaintiff herself. In that Page. 3 regard, I have no doubts that the attached constitution is not registered by the relevant authority to govern the welfare of the 8th Defendant. It cannot therefore, be used to confer jurisdiction to the plaintiff to interfere with the activities of the 8th Defendant. The plaintiff ought to have attached to her Plaint the 8th Defendant’s registered constitution, which is recognized by the Registrar-General or Administrator- General to establish that she is empowered to oversee the welfare of the 8th Defendant. In the absence of the 8th Defendant’s registered constitution empowering the plaintiff to interfere with the welfare of the 8th Defendant, a registered body corporate, the plaintiff lacks the requisite locus standi to sue. In fact, the plaintiff and the 8th Defendant are two different bodies corporate, each registered by its own names and constitution. For one of them to interfere with the welfare of the other, there must be clear authority in their respective registered constitutions. Since we have not been availed the registered constitutions, be that of the plaintiff or that of the 8th Defendant, the Plaintiff has not established her locus standi in the matter, and thus the suit is incompetent. All being said, this suit is hereby struck out with costs. Having struck out the Plaintiff’s suit, the Counter claim remains. The court may proceed to determine the counter claim or, in its absolute discretion order a separate suit to be instituted depending on the circumstances of each case. In the instant matter, some of the orders sought in the counterclaim of the Defendants have been overtaken by events by the order of this court sustaining the Preliminary objection. In that respect, it would not be in the interest of justice to proceed with the counterclaim in this very suit. The Defendants are directed to file a separate suit against the Plaintiff if at all they still find it necessary to do so. It is so ordered. Dated at MWANZA this 3rd of April 2025 . A. MATUMA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 4