PO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION FINAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM SUB REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 19187 OF 2024 TRANSCARGO LIMITED ......................................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS Z. H. POPPE LIMITED ............................................................. DEFENDANT RULING ON NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 17th & 31st October 2024 MWANGA, J. The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant named above, claiming the following reliefs; (i) Payment of United States Dollars Ninety-Six Thousand and Twenty-Eight and Fifty-Eight Cents (USD 96,028,58) or equivalent in Tanzania Shillings at the Bank of Tanzania’s market rate on the payment date. (ii) Interest on the decretal sum of 12% from the date of judgment to the date of full payment. (iii) General damages. 1 (iv) Costs of the suit. (v) Any other relief this Honorable Court fits deem and just to grant When saved with the plaint, the defendant filed a WSD and then raised two points of preliminary objections. Firstly, the Plaint is bad in law, and the Suit is untenable for want of invocation of this Court's Jurisdiction for the reason that the Plaintiff did not provide a convention of the United States dollars into Tanzania Shillings, which is the Currency for the determination of the Jurisdiction of this court. Secondly, the plaintiff is bad in law, and the suit is untenable for the failure of the Plaintiff to state the value of the subject matter. The objection was disposed of orally, where Mariam Salehe represented the plaintiff while the defendant enjoyed the services of Gloria Ulomi, both learned counsels. Following the submission, Ms. Ulomi referred the court to Order VII, Rule 1 (i), and submitted that the plaintiff must file claims in Tanzania shillings. In her view, the currency in USD violates the law. She contended further that Paragraph 4 of the plaint and 15 shows that the claim amount is USD 96,028. 58, paragraph 15 states that it is more than 200; thus, the plaint is not certain to her. Ms. Ulomi placed reliance on the 2 case of Magweiya Chache Magere Vs. Math Manumbu and 7 Others, Misc. Land Case No 9/2020 HCT –Mwanza. She then submitted that failure to convert the currency into Tanzania shillings creates uncertainty and thus leads the court to strike out the suit for being incompetent. In the second point, she said that based on the above shortfalls, the defendant cannot determine the value of the subject matter. Ms. Mariam opposed the above contention; she argued that paragraph 4 of the plaint expressly stated that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was the payment of USD 96,028. 58, thus, in her view, Order VII, Rule 1 (i) has been complied with, as the order does not expressly state that the claim must be in Tanzania shillings. The counsel placed reliance on the case of St. Mery and Tanzania Investment Tanzania Limited Vs. Athena Brothers, (92) LTS and Two Others, Commercial Case No. 2 of 2005 on page 7, and Tanzania Commodities Trading Co. Ltd Vs. Kingdom Shan Yuanzhi Rixin Food Co. Ltd and Another, Civil Case No. 2002 of 2022, where the claim was brought under USD, and yet the court entertained. She took the view that there is no contradiction because paragraph 4 of the plaint provides certain terms of the claim, and Paragraph 15 invoked the court’s jurisdiction that the claim is within pecuniary jurisdiction. He concluded that 3 this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Ms. Mariam also challenged the point of objection raised. She contended that the same is not preliminary Objections and that entertaining the same would be erroneous as the same are not pure points of law as envisaged in the case of Mukisa Biscuit. Therefore, she prayed that the preliminary objections be dismissed with costs. I have keenly passed through the rival submissions in which the same breed one critical question: whether the Court is vested with jurisdiction to handle the matter. I will begin disposal of the matter by quoting an excerpt from the decision of the Court in Shyam Thanki and Others vs New Palace Hotel [1972] HCD No. 97, where the Court sounded a warning against the parties conspiring and vest jurisdiction in an organ that enjoys none of it. It was stated as follows: “All the courts in Tanzania are created by statutes, and their jurisdiction is purely statutory. It is an elementary principle of law that parties cannot by consent give a court jurisdiction which it does not possess.” 4 This decision demonstrates that jurisdiction is a statutory prescription and that invocation of the court’s jurisdiction is not a matter of fashion, done at the convenience of the parties. Now, reverting to the first preliminary objection raised by the defendant, I believe that it is unfounded. There is no law limiting parties from filing suits with foreign currency. Thus, it is fallacious to contend that the court has no jurisdiction simply because the plaintiff has failed to provide a conversion of United States dollars into Tanzania Shillings. Ms. Ulomi has also cited the case of Magweiya Chache Magere vs. Math Manumbu and Others, with profound respect, this case is irrelevant under the circumstances as it does not support her contention that the value of the subject matter should be converted to Tanzanian shillings; instead, it was on pecuniary jurisdiction as per Order VII Rule 1. Thus, I hold that this ground of objection is hollow, and I overrule it. Next for consideration is the contention that the plaintiff is bad in law and the suit untenable for failure by the Plaintiff to state the value of the subject matter for jurisdiction and court fees. It is true that the provisions of Order VII Rule 1(1) of the CPC provide that particulars of the plaint must include a statement of the value of the suit's subject matter to determine 5 the court’s jurisdiction and the requisite fees. Nevertheless, my perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has stated the value of the subject matter in paragraphs 4 and 15 of the plaint; the value is also reiterated in the 1st paragraph of his prayers. Thus, this point is destitute of merit. In sum, I find the objections lacking merit, and I overrule them. I order that the suit be heard on merit. Costs to be in the cause. It is so ordered. MWANGA J JUDGE. 31/10/2024 COURT: The ruling has been delivered at Dar es Salaam on 31st October,2024 in the presence of Mariam Salehe, counsel for the plaintiff and Gloria Ulomi, Consel for the defendant MWANGA JUDGE 31/10/2024 6