Cashewnut Board of Tanzania vs M/s Services S.A and Others (Civil Case No. 170 of 1998) [2000] TZHC 187 (17 April 2000)

0 IN THE HIGH COURT OFT AN ZANI A (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO.170 OF 1998 . CASHEWNUT BOARD OF TANZANIA ... PLAINTIFF VERSUS M/S GMT SERVICES S.A .......... 1ST DEFENDANT BELGOLAISE BANK ................ 2ND DEFENDANT EURAFRICAN BANK (T) LIMITED ... 3RD DEFENDANT RULING MSUMI,JK: In the main suit respondent is suing three d~fendants including the applicant as third defendant. This application which has been filed under Order VI Rule 5 and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code is for further _ and better particulars. In support of the application is the affidavit of advocate Wilbert Basilius Liyoya Kapinga and attached to it as .annexture is a list of the required further and better particulars. According to the said annexture, further and better particulars are sought in respect of paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of the plaint. As far ,, ,.

2

• ·· as paragraph 5 is concerned what the plaintiff clearly says is that the third defendant is the agent of the second defendant: This statement does not require any further clarification. Similarly the staten1ent "that the plaintiffs claim against the defendants jointly and severally" is sufficiently clear. The plaintiff need not as requested by the applicant, give full and proper particulars of the facts alleging joint and several liability of the defendants. The questions raised by the applicant as a basis for the required particulars in respect of paragraph 7 of the plaint are clearly covered by the contents of the said paragraph. The paragraph clearly states that the referred agreen1ent between the plaintiff and the first defendant was written arising fron1 the quoted LC No DSM 013/95/15 dated 8/12/95. There is no ambiguity as to whether the agreen1ent was oral or written. As a whole there is nothing in the said paragraph which requires some elaboration. The concerned raised in respect of paragraph 8 is also .unfounded. It is quite clear that paragraph 8 is a corollary to what has been avered in paragraph 7. Hence the phrase "that following the fore going" appearing in paragraph 8 refers to what has been stated in . paragraph 7. ' ,J

, .,, .. . ,, Contrary to applicant's contention, no more p~ rticulars are required . ~ - in respect of paragraph 9. It is quite clear that th~ wrd "credit" appearing in this paragraph refers to the-Form or Documcntar I Cred_it mentioned in_ paragraph 7. The other information sought in respe t of paragraph 9 are matters of evidence. They need not beavered in thJ pleading. The same I . 1 · l . I I . I ,-- 1 · J I . . 1· t llllg app teS tot le parltCU ars \V 11C 1 t lC app ICanl Ir:· sec <111g Ill respect 0 paragraph 11. And as stated earlier, third defendant has been joined in this ! i I sujt_as agent of the first defendant. Hence the phras "agent or otherwise" I and therefore there is no need for clarification. Ii clear. As a whole, all the referred paragraphs of the ,taint are sufficiently The application for further and better particulrrs is therefore dismissed with costs. I i ' 1: a~~~ I-l-.-A. i1111 .JA.JI KIONGOZI. 17.4.2000 -: For the plaintiff: Absent For·the I st defendant:\ Absent For'the 2nd defendant: Absent 1""'?-.,-..-.,..,;"~~ ~•, "'!e For the 3rd defendant: Mponda. '!I