19990827 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COlTHT OF TANZANIA DAR ES .3Ai~.!\;,i"' DIS'l'HICT REGISTRY AT Lf; R ES SM,AAtv: ·------~--- i;;ANANCHl MJ\RINF. ..PRGDlJCT.S ..(T) Lll-':ITED PL.I; TNT IFF I VEor•ur, _,:!.,flj :::, TANZANIA FISHERIES COHFOHilT 10N PRESIDENTIJ1L PARASTJ1TAL 3EC'I'I0N ' 1 . ~ . ' •• ~ ·••• ,. DEFENDANTS REFO?tl"½ C01v1i:JS:~ION RUL I NG J BUBESHI J: ---~-,:.,._,,_ On 21/5/99 1 this ccurt ordered counsel to file their arguments on the pre1i;-;;inary- pc.ints of objection raised by . ~~;'l'~ .;, . , the 2nd Defendant - the Presidential Parastatal Sector Reform 1· ... :·. Commission, hereinafter the PSRC. Counsel for PSRC was to file his en or befc:,r-e 10/6/99, rep~y by counsel for the _l\ plaintiff to file his by 24/6/99, rejoinder if any, to be ... ·:(~);f·:{iled liy 2/7 /99. Mr. JV;auggc lea:r,.., ,·l ccunse] :.tj pe ,--j·.~g fur 0 ·---->_\~£$RC duly filed his submissi0~~-~ a/-~1~de;:''='.::l on 10/6/~9. ·t-·: ... ·-~:-·r~i.. · ·• .r . . . ·,,,ijt,f;·JP. Maarnry for the pJ.a.intiff has- not d,-·ne sc torlate. -.:;_~_._, •:,'.: .. . . -· ,[./$~- ' T.b.e objections were th:tee fcld; fcrst;r-'"that the su::.~: w3s · fj.lec~ :.;.:i tb'..Jut le::i.ve ;;f this_. cc.-urt; sec::md that the suit . -✓ is mis::..cnceived and bad in la_w; .-t"afid thirdly that the suit is _,_, ,'---' bad :i:n,..J§l'' N'lfor Jpck ci' ~1ffeC-:t--f;si:t1g cause of ac:eicn. . ~.--:. _-;--~~~<r_( \r:.~~~~-; •:!~~_;..:~;-~~,.~:·:t). ;• =~ ~.. - ; . . ~ To substarftiate his arguments ~1r. Maugo subraitted that, the 1st defendant TAFICO, was plac,-::. under PSRC vide GN 322/1996~ 8.nd by virtu~ of_ Se_~tL~n 43 of Public Corpora tic~' Aqt, 1992; as ar.1ended by Act No.-16 ·of ·1993. PSRC was empt,~ered to 8.Ct as e,fficial rec,eiver of all specified publi• corporaticns 1 including the 1st Defendant. And.further that the P.SRC had all rights ai1d powers cf an official receiver appointed·und.e~ the Bankruptay Ordinance, Cap.2-?• · And tha\ by virtue of secticn 9 (1) -of the Origin~nce~ 1'st Defendant cannct be sued without leave of court-. Secti,)n 9(1) reads·:-_ On the making of a receiyer-order the cfficia~ receiver sha+l be thereby ccnstituted receiver 6f the prcperty cf the debtor, anc1 thereafter, f. , : except as directed by this ?rdinance, '~ ~/2 t 2 no cred.i tor tu wlwm the debtor is indepted in respect of any d~bt proY'able in Benkrup'tay slial1 have any remedy .against the proper~y o~ person cf the debtor in respec ➔~ cf th2 ,~ebt, o:r 211::J.l cor.mence any acticn or bther legal nroceedings~ unJ.ess with leave of the court and on such terms as the ccurt rna_y imp:ose 11 ~ Mr. Mauggo has submitted. that· in ti:?:trr:s c.E the provisicr.'-; cited above, the plaintiff's clain: for a sum of US J.ollars 329,432.05 being provab1 e in bankrup-:ay,i leave of court was necessary before 'filing of the suit. Counsel Mauggo referred the cou1"'t to the case of .SAID MNIVi.BO and OTHERS VS STATE TRAVEL SERVICES LTD and TOURI3f( SERVICES (T) and ANr·THER High Cf:,urt Civil Case Ne. 296/97., The second cbjecticn rai~ed was that the suit is misc once hred and bad in law. Mr. Na 1 l[!;rs-:; sub!lii t :~prl thR t the pJ.aintiff is prayine, inter alia, for !3.n cru~·r .11' specific perorr:1an(..;e ag3inst the l.3t Dei'e::·nd·3nt 1 tu ccjmJJly with Act 22 ,1 cf the agreernel1t tc- review the charter agreement. And secondly the, t the 2nd deferidant be re::.·~::'"-:: _;_:,1ed by an .ordE::r cf permanent inju.ncti-:n Jrom invitin-=; investors to purchase assets of 1st Defendant until final d2terminati,.)n cf this suit, Er .• I\'iauggo stated that as the. 2nd IJefendant has been reste'l with powers of 1 restructuring public corpcraticns :·_ -_ tfuis ccuntry,. and also negotiate with investors for the pt,;,, ch:3-s:e, lease., rn;:magement or control of: shares/assets of the spe~ificd public corporation, the prayers. scucht by the plaintiff cannot be gr granted; as it is contr3.ry to the spirit of the Public Gorporatic)n Act, 1992~ as amended •. The third obj.ecticn ·ra i.sed. is thff,t there is no cause of action against the ct:@fendant-s in that as the 2nd defendant 1st defendant, all the assets and exis:t-fng liabilities now rest with the 2nq. Defendant.. Thus an order -fo!' spec_if ic . performance cannot be ma:de against the l:s:t Defen1ant, stated Mr., ··Mauggc-_., He _furthe:.c argued that as. the 2nd ,Pef_e~nt T' • 3 is an statutory bcdy wjth powers under the Act deal with the l~t defe·nd.ant in terms c·f -Sec.tiCJt! 39 (1) of the Act, the plaintiff ca:rmot dc;p:_,; .1d ,_m the che.rter ,:Jgreement that was enterC?cl into br<::·,--::-2 the 1st Defendant. w~s specified anc. which agreement does not st:8 ce if the Vessels 'Jill be aliE::nated infavour of the pl:=.iintiff. Mr. Ma'.lggc fer the defendants has raised some valid points« This ccurt is pr:rsu::1.ded by ..J·~i.Ei subm.i.ssj nr1s mac12 . ' by -~i1e pla iritif.:f, and in absence cf ccunter argurr:ents , I am inc1ined 'tc uphold the objecti:;ns raised and dismiss the suit with costs,. Delivered before A.. Go BUBESHI Mauggo fer the fll.l?iill. Defendants and in absence 27/8/99 of the Plaintiff.