Joyce Mwisongo vs General Manager Kunduchi Beach Hotel Ltd (Civil Case No. 276 of 1996) [2000] TZHC 183 (16 November 2000)

, ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF Ti;J-TZJ,J·TIA AT DAi.~ ZS SALAf.J'i CIVI~ CA8~ NO. 276 OF 1996 JOYCE I1'WI30NGO • • •• • ••••••• APPLICJ..J'JT V E r:. S ·u C THE GENERAL MANh.GZR IWNDUCHI DEACH HOTEL LT1 1 ., , RZSPOlJif.::NT RULING :CUDESHI ,' J • I course of heqring this clqim, counsel for the de:fend-"lnt hqs rqised preliminqry objections on points of lqw, nqmely:- thqt leave o:f this court hqs not been obtined prior to suing the 2nd defendqnt thqt the claims qre resju.:2.ic:'..b been the dispute, if l'!ny, ha/;.;•rou.;ht to court prem;:\turely. Mr. Mtuncwq lerned counsel appering for the plaintiff h;:is c.cun±, .. :orcd the objections r.qize·d. He bru:; su'.::lmi tted thl'l t as the 1st /J.efendqnt is still tr.<=iclin.,-so to speqk, the provisions of I section 9 (1} o:f Cqp 25 c:'lnnot llpply.. He bqs st:=ited th.t by being spGcified, the defend:::int h-"ls oot lost its ·-leg.=:t l personq li ty , inclu::iing powers of suinE qnJ being sued.· Th:'lt wht the speci:fieC: corporA.tions :'lre supposed to do i8 to c.qrry out their duties in A.Ccorc1rnce with its st:::t te·r.,ent of corpori:i. te .:.:,_-y :'IS perrS.ecti:0n 42 of .1.i.ct 16 of JiiaVcff 1993. Mr. Lugut-1.q dded further th::i t .q corpor:::i tior is_/ bnkrupt :::fter the PSRC hl'lS, in course of restructuri:,g, recommended it to be bA.nkrupt. According to Mr.· Lu:'.;trn;:i the jefeny;;int w.qs still tr.=:t::'iint; hence there w.qs no need ' ' to proceed under- 9 (1) of the D.qnkrupt Ordinqnce :for purposes of obtA.ining leve. He is of the firm vie1,1 tbt the defendA.nt ws not bnkrupt. on r-c,sjudioat-e_ , Mr. Lucuw.q hA.s submitted th::t t the cVt im of subsistence allow::tnce Wi"!.S not in issu~ ;1hen the pVlint".i.f:f filed her eqrlier cV:tims. T:b:=it the cl<:dm .q;iout subsistence A.llow.qnce becP.me ::..1ue ::i.fter the pb:dntiff h:-:tl successfully cl1:'lllenged the su;n;n:::iry dismis.=:tl, A.nd then the issue of' repqrtri::i. tion Allowqnce becqme due. \

/ 2 Is le.qve necessAry before the pl~ otiff CA.n file ::i c11m .qg-:=\inst the defend:rn.t? I think yes. I sqy so bec.quse once tbe defend-'¼nt becA.me specified 9 ti1e · PG:.:c autom:::i. ticF\ 1 ly assuumed the role of offici,ql receiver- s.43 (1) (b) of lct 16/1993. The effect_of these provisions wqs to plqce All properties of ~ specified public corpor.o,tion under the PSRC, interms of section 9 of Cap 25. In my reqciin;; of thq t l::iw no distinc_tion ws mqde between ::i. non erforing ::ind q performing corpor.qtion AS Mr. Lugt..J::i is .qttempting to expl.qin. Indeed A. simil::ir point Arose in the cqse of S/..ID MJ:Jll-DO .c OT:-:::::.; VS. 3Tl .. 'I'E TRAVEL Sf:;RVICE LTD /.J,JD TOUTISH Si£I(.VICES ThE::..,t..NIL - CIVIL Cf .. 3E 296 of 1997 • Hy brother Judce K::;.lcgeyP. w.qs ::>:f the vie1rJ tb:=tt the PSf(C WAS creted by S43 of Ii.ct 16/1993 to be A. speciql offici::i.l receiver in terms of section 9 of.C.qp 25 so AS to sqve the propertie$ of specified public corporPJ.tiotls from~ bqrrqge of cl::\ims from r-tll wouL:1 be crodi tors. No distin.ction w:=ts m-"'it1e between tbose corporq tion.s th::i. t were under liquicJ:i. tion or restructuring. I ::i.:;.ree therefore th::i t le:=-tve to suo the PSRC w::is to be sought qnd obtined. I u hold th.qt point of objection. W·rn the clqim resjudicqte? Indeed qccording to her own pli=lint filed pra (3) the pl::\inti:ff \s/93 termin:=ited upon her own pplicqtion to be r.etircd pre.ma-tu.rely Th.PJ.t she -Jl'IG clqiming 'for her tor;nimil benefits.para 7 of the r;l:=.int, the pl:dn-tuff states thqt while sb0 ws witing to be repqrtriqted to her pl::ice of domicile, she :, lso clq ime::-1 for subsisten7; l lownce. I think this cl::iim in wili.:J :,n-:: c.::irmot be resjudicA.tA.. If the pl:::i.intiff h::id been pqid off immedi:,tely her rep.qrtrition ;:illow.;:;ince, the -issue of cl::dming for subsistence could not h;:ive ;:;irisen. 1:..r..: the pV'lintiff coulcj not have filod for this clqim if repq tri.::i tion ? llol~:::ince J1qc1 been p::i.id - pqrq 7 of' th0- pl:=1int. To th 9. t end this court is of the vi.ew thq t such ::i Cl;\ im c::i.nnot be t0rmed resjudicqt~ ::is it rose P.fter fqilure by the defen:lnt to ropqrtri.qte ·the plAintiff. Mind_ you the defcmdnt in his "Tritten St::i.temeo't o:f Defence dic1 not ch::i.llenge the content.en-'· ·/ of p::i.rqs 7 ::i.nd O cif'the plinte I reject this obj8ctio~.

• 3 In the finl event the objectiona rised qre Allowed in p::i.rt to the extent thqt le.qve o:f this court is necess::try bofore filing for such .q cl.:=tim :1.g.:=t Delivered before Mr. HaUGGO for De:fen::1"1 n ts Plqintiff qbsent. 1 6/ J. 1/ 2000