the registered trustees of roman catholic diocese of kigoma vs registered trustees of the chama cha mapinduzi and 3 others 2023 tzhc 21856 29 september 2023

I N T H E H I G H C O U RT O F T H E U N I T E D R E P U B L I C O F T ANZ ( I N T H E D I S T R I CT R E G I S T R Y O F K I G O M A ) AT K I G O M A L A ND C A S E N O . 1 0 O F 2 0 2 3 T H E R E G I ST E R E D T R U S TE E S O F R O M A N C AT H O LI C D I O C E S E O F K I G O M A P LA I NT I F F VERSUS R E G I ST E R E D TRU S T EE S O F T H E 5 C H A M A C H A M AP I N D U Z I 1 T DEFENDANT THE HON. MINISTER FOR LANDS AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS DEVELOPMENTS 2ND DEFENDANT ' UVINZA DISTRICT COUNCIL 3RD DEFENDANT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL 4 TH DEFENDANT RULING 21/8/2023 & 29/9/2023 Mlacha, J. The plaintiffs, The Registered Trustees of Roman Catholic Diocese of Kigoma filed a suit against the Registered Trustees of the Chama cha Mapinduzi, The Hon. Minister for Lands and Human Settlements Developments, Uvinza District Council and the Hon. Attorney General (hereinafter, where need be, referred to as the first, second, third and fourth respondents respectively). It is a claim for land which they allege to own from 1932 but which is now being trespassed by the defendants. The land measures 39.6 acres. Service 1 w a s e ffe cte d an d th e de fe nce s w e re fi le d . S o m e e ffo rt s to se tt le th e m a tt e r w e re d o ne d u rin g m e d ia tio n w ith o u t su c ce ss . It is an o ld d is p u te . P a rtie s w e re in v ite d to p re se n t th e ir case s . W h ile in th a t d irectio n, co u n se l fo r th e first d e fe ndan t, M r. Fa b ia n D o n a tu s lod g e d a p relim in a ry obje ctio n w h ich is th e subjec t o f th is ru lin g . It rea d s us u nd e r: a ) T h is ca se is inco m p e te n t a s it w a s fi le d w ith o u t th e reso lu tio n p asse d b y th e B o a rd o f T ru ste e s as th e pla in tiff h e re in is a b od y co rp o ra te a nd it co n tra ve n e the la w s a n d th e co n s titu tio n o f th e pla in tiff h e re in . T h e m a in suit w a s sta ye d an d pa rt ie s w e re in vite d to m a ke th e ir resp e ctive su b m issio n s. M r. Fa b ia n D o na tu s m a d e a su b m issio n w h ich w a s rep lie d by M r. M ta k i a nd Ka b u g uz i w h o rep re se n ted th e p la in tiffs. M r. N ick so n Ten ge si sta te a tto rn e y w h o a p p e a red fo r th e se co n d , th ird a nd fou rt h de fe n d an ts de cl in e d to su p p o rt th e o bje ct. W h e n h e w a s called sa y so m e th in g h e re p lie d sh o rt ly sa y in g tha t. "M y Lo rd, I h a v e n o th in g to a d d . I su p p o rt w ha t ha d be e n sa id b y M r. M ta k i" W h a t th e n is th e co n ten ts o f su b m issio ns ma d e b y M r. Fa b ia n ? T h e g ist o f his su b m issio n is th a t, th e pla in tiff is a bo d y co rp o ra te re g iste re d un d e r th e 2 T ru ste e s Inc o rp o ra tio n Act C a p 3 18 R .E . 2 0 1 9 . Its o p e ra tio ns a re g o ve rn e d b y th e T ru ste e s Inc o rp o ra tio n A ct and its co n stitu tio n . H e sub m itted th a t a rticl e 14 (iv ) o f th e p la in tiff 's Co n stitu tio n re qu ires a reso lu tio n o f th e B oa rd to be p assed a nd sig ne d b y the 'o rd in a ry' a nd 2 m e m b e rs o r to b e sig n e d b y th e V ic a G e n e ra l a n d 2 m e m b e rs . H e said th a t th e w o rd 'o rd ina ry' re fe rs to the B is h o p . T h e Vic a G e n e ra l is h is a ssistan t. C ou n se l su b m itt e d th a t, th e re is no re so lu tio n o f th e B oa rd in th is ca se . It is not attached making the case improperly before the court, he said. He referred the court to Newlife Hardware company Ltd and Manwaly Investment Ltd v. Shandow Locheng Export Co Ltd and 2 others, Commercial Case No. 86 of 2022 page 12 and Unction Trading Company Ltd v. KCB and another, Land Case No. 222 of 2013 (High Court Land Division DSM) page 7. He ended saying that if they. had not attached the resolution, they could at least plead . ' it. He argued the court to dismiss the case. Mr. Mtaki started by arguing that the point raised does not qualify to be a preliminary objection if taken in line with the case of Mukisa Biscuts Manufacturing Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A 696, Pages 700 and 701. He said that a preliminary objection contains a point of law which has been pleaded or arise in the pleadings. He said that one does not 3 ne ed e v ide n c e to sub sta n tia te h is p re lim in a ry o bje ctio n . C o u nse l su b m itt e d tha t, m o v ing to th e p ro v is io n s o f th e co nstitu tio n w a s a m o ve to ga th e r e v id ence . H e re fe rred the co u rt to its d ec is io n m a de in Moham edali Sadrudin Mohamedali vs. Mahamoud Mwemusi Chatikundi and another, Miscellanous Civil Application No. 9 of 2021 (High Court Mtwara) " where it was said that a preliminary objection must be pleaded in the written statement of defence as required by rule order VIII rule2 of the CPC. He went on to submit that it was wrong to bring the preliminary objection on a separate piece of paper. He invited the court to make a further reference to CRDB Bank Ltd v. Noorally K.J. Dhanani and Shirazi H.K. Dhanani, Commercial Case No. 102 of 2001 on the same line of reasoning. He stressed that it was wrong to raise the preliminary objection through a separate piece of paper because it contradicts rule 2 of order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code Act, Cap 33 R.E 2019 (the CPC) Making reference to section 3A of the CPC and the case of Alliance One Tobacco (T) Ltd and another v. Mwajuma Hamisi and another, Miscellaneous Application No. 803 of 2018 pages 4-5, he submitted that much of what has been submitted by Mr. Fabian Donatus is curable in this era where courts are required to administer justice without technicalities. 4 C o un s e l w e n t o n to s u b m it in th e a lte rn a tiv e tha t th e c a s e o f N e w life H a rd w a re (s u p ra ) w a s b a se d o n th e in te rp re ta tio n of se ctio n 14 7 o f the C o m pa n ie s Act w h ic h h as s p e c ifi c p rov is io ns w h ic h re q u ire a B o a rd re s o lu tio n to s u e so m e th ing w h ic h is n ot e x is tin g in th e T rus te e s In c o rp o ra tio n Act. A c o m p an y a n d a T ru s t c o rp o ra tio n a re tw o d iffe re n t b o d ie s , h e s a id . H e a dd e d th a t th e c a s e is a d e ci s io n o f th is c o u rt w h ic h h a s n o b in d in g e ffe c t. H e s a id tha t the p la in tiff is g o v e rn e d b y se ctio n 8 (1 ) (b ) o f th e T rus te e s In co rpo ra tio n A ct w h ic h g ive s it th e c ap a c ity to s u e o r b e s u e d . T h e A ct h a s n o re qu ire m e n t o f a B o a rd re so lu tio n , h e sa id . H e sa id th a t a rt icl e 14 (iv ) h a s b e e n g iv e n a w ron g in te rp re ta tio n b y c o un s e l fo r th e fi rs t d e fe n dan t. M r. K a b u g u z i jo ined h an d s w ith M r. M ta k i. H e s a id tha t e v e n u nd e r th e c o m pan ie s Act , th e re tw o s c h o o ls o f th o u g h ts o n th e is s u e a s to w h e th e r th e re is n eed to a tta c h th e . B oa rd re s o lu tio n in p le a d ing s . M a k ing re fe re n c e to Betam Communications (T} Ltd v. China International Telecommunication Construction Corporation and another, Civil Case No. 220 of 2012 (H/C DSM), he said that it may not be attached and yet the case can be legally before the court. Counsel for the first defendant made a rejoinder and reiterated his earlier position. 5 I ha d a c h anc e to read th e p ro v is io n s o f th e la w cited b y th e p a rt ies an d th e ca se s. I ha ve re a so n ed o u t ca re fu lly . I th in k , w ith resp e ct to coun se l fo r th e fi rst d e fen d an t, the o b je ctio n is m isco nce ived an d ba se le ss . I w ill try to d e m o n stra te a lb e it b rie fly . A rticl e 14 (iv ) o f th e C o nstitu tio n o f T h e R e g iste re d T ruste e s o f th e Ro m a n C a th o lic D io ce se o f K ig o m a re a d s as un d e r:- "(iv ) Fo r p u rp o se s o f carrying out or giving authentic and legal effect to any transactions connected with the general thrust of aims and objections stated in part tw o of this constitution, the signature of the ordinary together with that of another member of the Registered Trustees or two signatures of any other Registered Trustees plus that of the vicar General shall validate that transaction of transactions" Part two has the 'AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE Rl::GlS 11::KELJ I KUS I t:t:s OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF KIGOMA'. They are three namely: i) To preach promote, propagate, spread and teach Roman Catholic Christian faith ... 6 ii ) T o c h a m p io n , e n h a n c e a n d p ro m ote re lig io u s , so ci a l, c e, e d u c a tio n a l, m ed ic a l a n d h ea lth s ch e m e s a ctiv itie s .... iii) To a c q u ire , h o ld a nd o w n m o v a b le a nd im m ov a b le p ro y , to c o n v ey , a ss ig n , d e m ise a nd m o rt ga ge a n y la n d o r a n y in te re s t th e re in , b e lo n g ing to o r b e in g h e ld fo r th e b e n e fi t a n d in th e in te res t o f th e R e g is te re d T ru ste e s . T h e re is n oth ing in a rt icl e 14 (iv ) a nd p a rt tw o m a k ing refe re n c e to fil ing a s u it. W h a t is p ro v id e d is tha t w h e re th e T rus tee n e ed to d o an y o f the th re e th ing s m e n tio n e d p a rt tw o (w h ic h a re n o t c on n e c te d to fi ll ing su its ), th e re mus t b e an in stru m e n t s ign e d b y the o rd in a ry (B is h op ) w ith o n e m e m b e r o f th e B ro a rd o r tw o m e m be rs o f the B o a rd an d th e v ica r G e ne ra l. F u rt h e r to th a t as c o rrec tly o b se rv e d by M r. M ta k i; th e c a s e s h e c ite d m a k e re fe re n c e to p ro v is io n s of th e C om p a n ie s A ct w h ic h a re n o t sim il a r to the p ro v is io ns o f the Trus te e s In c o rp o ra tio n A ct. a co m p a n y a n d a tru stee a re tw o d iffe re n t b o d ie s a n d s h o u ld n ot be m ix ed u p . In o th e r w o rd s , th e p ro v is io n s o f the Co m p a n ie s A ct do n o t g o v e rn tru s te e co rp o ra w h ic h ha v e th e ir se p a ra te le g is la tio n a n d s e t u p . A ga in , a s o b s e rv e d b y m y s is te r M u ru k a J. (as she then was) in Betam Communications Limited (supra) even in companies now failure to attach a Board Resolution is not fatal because it 7 is an in te rn a l m an a ge m e n t is s u e w h ic h sh o u ld n o t b e th e c o n c e rn o f th ird pa rtie s . F u rt h e r, a s c o rre ctly o b s e rv ed b y M r. M ta k i th e re is c u re u nd e r sec tio n 3 A o f th e C P C s o lo n g a s th e re w as n o m isca rria g e o f ju stic e in th e m a tt e r. T h a t sa id , I s e e n o b as e fo r d is c u s s ing th e o th e r p o in ts ra ise d b y c o uns e l w h ic h m a y be th e s ubje c t fu tu re d is c uss io n s . T h e p re lim ina ry obje c tio n is d is m is s e d w ith c o sts . It is ordered so. Judge 29/9/2023 8