19871230 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The original suit and court orders pertained only to tenancy of the Dhow Wharf Office, not the open space outside. Respondents' occupation of the open space is not covered by the eviction order and is legally supported by valid licences.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19871230 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Wananchi Labour Pool Corporation Limited; Respondent: Bandarini Labour Pool Cooperative Society Limited
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 December 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Tenancy Dispute, Eviction, Nuisance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wananchi Labour Pool Corporation Limited
Appellant
Bandarini Labour Pool Cooperative Society Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondents should be restrained from occupying open space outside Dhow Wharf Office
- 2 Whether respondents' occupation violates court orders regarding tenancy
Ratio Decidendi
The original suit and court orders pertained only to tenancy of the Dhow Wharf Office, not the open space outside. Respondents' occupation of the open space is not covered by the eviction order and is legally supported by valid licences.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed
- Applicants to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
... IN TI-IE IllGII COUl1T OF TANZAJUA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL IJ0.1 OF 1986 { Original RH.Civil Case No .193 of 1985 at Kisutu RM 1 s Court Dar es Sala.am). J WAHAMCIIT LABOUR POOL CORPOR.'\.TION LTD.,, •••••• APPELLANT versus BANDARINI LABOUR POOL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIUITED .•-t41J•o,.•••r,••-:t•o•••• RESPOlffiENT RULING MAilfA 2J t 2 The applicants, Wananchi Labour Pool Corporation Limtod have filed this application for an order that the respondents, Bandarini Labour Pool Cooperative Society. be restrained from preventing the applicants to conduct their business operations by illegally· occupying the space right in front of the applicant's office, harrassing and intercepting customers against court orders. I shall give· a brief baol:..ground of the matters giving rise to, this application. Wananchi Labour Pool Corporation Limited, whom t shall refer to as the applicants, filed a suit in the district court at Kisutu against Bandarini Labour Pool Cooperative Societ--J, ~tl1om I shall refer to as the respondents. The suit, ru~ Civil Case No.193 of 1985, was for vacant possession of Dhow Wharf Office, property of ·che Tanzania J.:Ia.rbours Authority. In the suit, the dispute was over tenancy of tllo Dhow vn1a.rf Office. Tho district court dismi·ssed the 131.lit. On appeal to this court, J:a.zimoto, J • allowed the appeal and held that the applicnnts were the lawful tenants of the ofi'ice. An eVicJi;ion order was issued by an order of this court dated 11th September, 1987, and the respondents were evicted from tho suit premises. The applicants were reinstated in• the suit premises and they have been,1 and still a.re, occupying the Dhow Wharf Office. · It is alleged that the respondents a.re occupying an open space outside the suit p1•emisos, and. the applicants are asking this court to order the respondents to vacate the area they a.re occupyihg. I have read the plaint filed in the district court and the judgment of' 1 Kazimoto,J. very carefully. It is clear that the suit was for tenancy of the Dhow Whai-f Office and not fol' any other area in the Dar es Salaam Port. Even the application for execution o:f the decree sought for the eviction of the respondents from t~e suit premises. In his. judgement, Ite,zimoto; J. referred to the suit pretnises as the Dhow Wharf Office and not the whole·of the Port area. The court order issued in execution of the decree could not, therefore, be taken to moan that the respondents should.' vacate the area outside the suit premises. The suit before the distric·b court was for tenancy of the ••o•oo•uo11t•/2 2 ~ Dhow Wl.lc:;.rf Office. That is· what the -~rial court and ·this court dealt with. Tho open spaoe outside the. SL'li·i; premises was not an issue before the_ trial court. It has been alleged in the .:w:fidavit in support of this application, that the respondents are illegally occupying the open sapce outside the suit promises1 in that the respondents 11 ll.old only c.1., marine licence and 110 office." That allegation has no truth in it. ·The respondents hold a merchants licence . \ No,00090 is:;.11ed by the Port l'!a.nager and 2. Business Licence No.00776900 for loading and unloading of ships •. ·Both licence are valid, and they expire on 30th April, 1988. Copies of the licences have been ru:me:x:ed to the oountel" affidavit. The Business Licence shows that the respondents have an office at Sikukuu (Aggrey Streets, No.13/44,) The respondents a.re therefore operating Jlihoir busiwws of loading and unloading in the port ai·ea. legally• If the applicants foC:l that the respond®,tcs action of occupying the open apace in the Port a.1.,ea. outside the Dhow Wharf Office amounts to a. nuisance, they cll'e a·t liberty to file a scpm-ate suit., But the prGscmt suit was for tenancy of the <Dhow Wharf Office. The respondents ho.Ve not dona anything a.gainst the order of this court which declared the applicants lawful tenants of the Dhow Wharf Office. This application hae 110 merit 0nd it is dismissed 1-Tith costs. W.J. l:IAI:NA JUDGE DAl:l ES SAW.AM 3CYJ.1H DECENBER, 1987 • Mrs. furebangira. for the Applicants, Mr. Mshaslii for Ht•. 1-faira. for the Respor,dents.