Tai Five Hotel Ltd vs Board Of Trustees Of Public Service Social Security Fund (PSSSF) and Another (Land Case No. 6952 of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2819 (22 May 2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MWANZA SUB - REGISTRY) AT MWANZA LAND CASE NO. 6952 OF 2026 TAI FIVE HOTEL LTD………………………………………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND (PSSSF)……………………1 ST DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………..2 ND DEFENDANT RULING 12 th & 22 nd May, 2026 KAMANA, J. This is a ruling in respect of a preliminary objection raised by the defendants challenging the competency of this suit under section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 20 [RE.2023]. According to the defendants, this suit is incompetent before this Court as the plaintiff did not take bonafide steps under section 13 to resolve the disputes out of court. From the parties’ submission, it is common ground that the party initiating the suit must as a condition precedent takes bonafide measures to resolve the disputes. However, the parties differ as to whether the plaintiff took any step to resolve the dispute or otherwise. 2 While the defendants maintained that the plaintiff contravened section 13 by not taking any step to resolve the dispute out of court, the plaintiff contended that it t ook the necessary steps to resolve the dispute by meeting with the first defendant to discuss their dispute. To substantiate its efforts, the plaintiff referred to paragraph 26 of the plaint. Without delving into the merits of the submissions of the part ies, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff took necessary steps in resolving the dispute with the defendants. According to section 13(2)(a), the act of notifying the adverse party about the impending dispute and offering to discuss it with a view to resolving the same is considered to constitute a necessary step to resolve the dispute. It is not in dispute that the defendants were served with a 90 days’ notice of the plaintiff’s intention to sue them over the dispute. The said notice stated all m aterial facts constituting the dispute. According to the notice, the plaintiff expected to hear from the defendants with a view to resolving the dispute before the expiry of the notice. Given that, it is my considered view that the 90 days’ notice issue d to the defendants by the plaintiff was not just a formality or an ornamental but served the purpose of informing them the impending 3 dispute and the readiness of the plaintiff to engage them in resolving the dispute. In other words, in disputes involving the Government, the requirement to issue the 90 days’ notice under section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap. 5 [Re.2023] complements the provisions of section 13. In this, I am persuaded by the position of this Court (Ebrahim, J) in the case of Kisena Agri Industries Ltd v. Tanzania Commercial Bank and Another, Land Case No. 31686 of 2024 - HC (Unreported), where it was stated: ‘ It should be known that giving a statutory notice to the Government before filing a suit gives the Government the opportu nity to settle the claim before a lawsuit is filed and to investigate the claim so that it can properly defend itself or to correct the conditions or practices that led to the claim. ’ Guided by that position, I am settled that it would be illogical, unreasonable and contrary to common sense to hold that the plaintiff failed to take the necessary steps to resolve the dispute before instituting this suit. The record clearly demonstrates that prior to commencing the proceedings, th e plaintiff issued the requisite notice to 4 the defendants with the intention of amicably resolving the matter out of court. Such conduct was consistent with the established legal principle stipulated under section 13 that parties should attempt to resolve disputes before resorting to litigation. Furthermore, I am of the view that the defendants’ inactiveness after receiving the notice cannot now be used against the plaintiff as evidence of non - compliance with the requirement of attempting amicable settleme nt. To hold otherwise would amount to penalizing the plaintiff for the defendants’ own unwillingness or failure to engage in resolving the dispute amicably . I dismiss the preliminary objection with costs. DATED at MWANZA this 2 2 nd May, 2026. KS KAMANA JUDGE