Empire Theatre Ltd vs Premier Stationeries (Civil Case No. 118 of 1997) [2000] TZHC 168 (19 May 2000)

i~C' "f)l.E' jS SAIA,\t:) -----..:.. .•. -.u,•..•,i,11 ........ ,... CIVIL C.'J.SE NO. 118 OF' 1997 Q<-OOQO i'Ll.IN'I'IFl" versus PliEMib':R :STATIONB.118 C' 0 0 ·, ., . On 8th February, 1999~ this cc,se could not p:coceed to mediation because the!'e wc:1s no principal officer from the p1aintiff compa.ny. It wa.s recorded Uwt in vie-,r of the nature of the allee;ed ora.l contract and regard being had to the nature of the dispute the plc.·intiffi s presence ::ias :necessa.ry O The case wa.s accordingly adjouned., Today a different :202son is of:fercc~. for an adjounrnent 1 rl . . . ' trot the plaintiff cornpany 1 s n1=,nacing Directoin~ who a.lone is seised of th.e fact of the ca.se is in England '\Shere he i::; ur1dergoing rnedic31 treatment. So fr, Ng,:210 lea,rned cc•unsel, ha.s moved the ccu:r.t to s;rcnt hj_m a.nother odjounmcnt until the man with the facts of the ca.se aTives Irom :,;n;_;:-:md. Mr. Msemwa has ,subrni ttod tl:.iat his in,struct:i.ons are to apply for· the di,smi1:;:::..:..1. of the snit be ca.use no sufficient cause for an adjounrnent h!,s been sho,me He bases hi.s contention on the hlhi.:·e of the pl?intiff. It is a company which hE1f: more thctn one director~ -If 1 tlwrcfore, one of th,:;r.:1 iz a\1ay them a.noth<::r one ought to have come. I have given .cc1reful consideration to the r:!_vel arguments. It seems to r:e that the pbintiff io not sufficiently serious with this ca.sefl It 1m.y be true 1 a.s contended by Vir. Nga.lo, that indeed it ,,1cs the n12n3ging director who entered into :.he allec;ed oral contract with the cle:·cnd.2mts. It is also true t:hat the affairs of the company ca.i.'1.not be stored into the hca.d 2md memory of an individual, however powerful ;.1.e nny be ix, the administration of the con9any. \fore it so the suit 1-101.1.ld hsve to be T·r'..thd}.'.,nm in the event of t.h8 death of the Eana.ging Di:i:-ector because he ,muld die ·,,;i th the fa.ct in his hea.d. I am, on that account, persuaded tha.t i:he plaintiff company's state of affa.irs have no record in the corr.pe.ny books • . Secondly, there is entirely no proof of the .:illeged illness., • o • o o/2

2 Upon the foregoing con,siderc:1hor.,r:, i;hc c:J.Ii1::licati.on for adjounmet, is refused. Not-: the notice of mediation :roqtdr28, }E..::.C,!--?.-.+~ thc:1t al1 p.";lrties i·iho r,iUst r,rove a s0ttlernent nn.wt appea.r on the dai·.F.! 8.nd time fixed for mediation. No rea.,son hes been given vthy any other director t)f the plaintiff conrpa:i.1y 1-:ns not come. In those circumstances I would, clc p1ayed by l-'.iro Msemv,a., J.isrnj_ss l' the suit. ,- ( Gui t dismissed with costs in terms of r~·.J.e 5 of Order VIII A of the Civil Procedure Codee Delivered. 15/6/1999 ;,1r·o .sem1·ta/Mr. M., Ig:'llo, Advoca.te - For :t'L;intiff Mr 0 Hsemwa, Advocate -' For Defends.nts. I' certify tl:ia.t this is a true copy of the original.

• , .. ,:-:,?.· . . ' ·.: . ···• . . ' , . . : . . - :