registered trustees of vignan educational foundation bangalore india another vs national development corporation others 2018 tzhclandd 371 29 june 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC LAND APPLICATION NO. 240 OF 2018 (Originating from Land case No. 210 of 2012) THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF VIGNAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (VEF), BANGLORE, INDIA..............................................1st APPLICANT INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (IMTU)..................2nd APPLICANT VERSUS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION........ 1st RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CHIEF SECRETARY...................................... 2nd RESPONDENT PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, STATE HOUSE................ 3rd RESPONDENT THE PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLODY AND VACATIONAL TRAINING...... 4™ RESPONDENT THE PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND PLANNING...........5™ RESPONDENT THE PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS DEVELOPMENT..............6™ RESPONDENT THE PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, GENDER, l ELDERLY AND CHILDREN.................................7™ RESPONDENT THE PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, EAST AFRICA, REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION...................... 8™ RESPONDENT AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT (Made under Section 96 o f the CPC, CAP 33 R E2002) 4 / 6/2018 & 29/ 6/2018 MZUNA, J.: This court is invited to make corrections of errors apparent on the face of record of the judgment delivered on 27th February, 2018. The application is preferred under section 96 of the CPC Cap 33 RE 2002 and there is an affidavit sworn by Mr. Bernard Mbakileki, the learned counsel for the applicants. For ease of reference, I prefer to quote part of the said affidavit, paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which read as follows: - w 3. That\ upon o f the records o f the judgment and the decree aforesaid referred to in paragraph 2 above, I noticed some errors and omission manifest on the face o f the records o f both the judgment and the decree, to start with, the wrong citation o f the Case Number, written 2 as "Land Case No. 210 o f 2010" instead o f "Land Case No. 210 o f 2012"in both the judgment and the decree. 4. That, further, in the record o f both the judgment and the decree\ the $ h, @h, and 7th respondents/third parties are missing from the lists o f the respondents/third parties. 5. That, furthermore, in the record o f the decree, there is omitted a statement o f the respondent's/defendant's prayers as set out in its counter claim against the applicants/plaintiffs. 6. That, the errors and omission aforesaid being manifest on the fact o f the records o f both thejudgment and decree respectively, I, on behalf of the applicants, but the letter Ref. no. L.C No. 210/2012/I MTU/KMMN/012/ VOL.III/12 dated 19th March, 2018, promptly addresses the Hon. Registrar o f the Hon. Court applying for correction o f the said errors and the omission. 7. That, by the letter Ref. LAND CASE 210/2012 dated 21th March, 2018 and sighted in our chambers on 24th April, 2018 as per the "received" stamp mark, I have been advised by the Hon. Court to make a formal application for the said rectification for purposes o f good records. Copies o f letters dated 19th March, 2018 and 21st March, 2018 aforesaid are annexed hereto and marked collectively as Annexture "IMTU -2"and the 1st and 2nd applicants crave leave of this Honourable court to refer to it as part of this application. 8. That, the rectification sought o f the records o f the judgment and the decree is for purposes o f proper records o f the Hon. Court 3 and for the intended appeal by the applicants to the Hon Court o f Appeal o f Tanzania against the whole decision o f the Hon. Court..." After reading the above affidavit, Mr. Msemwa, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent did not oppose the said application, a fact which was also shared by the Hon Attorney General for other respondents. It is worth noting that they never filed even the counter affidavit as proof that they agree for what is being sought for rectification. As a matter of fact, as above noted, what is being sought is only rectification of typing errors and omissions apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the record is rectified to read as Land Case No. 210 o f 2012 instead o f No. 210 o f 2010. All other sought prayers are equally incorporated to read as prayed for. To be more specific, the 3rdparties listed above as No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are also included in the judgment and decree. Similarly, the counter claim by the respondents/defendants to be included as prayed for though dismissed. The application is hereby granted with no order for costs.