Alphonce Buhatwa t/a Coco Beach Development vs Dar es Salaam City Commission (Civil Case No. 125 of 1998) [1999] TZHC 169 (6 August 1999)

IN THE HIGH COU:R'l' OF T.'.t-1ZMi!IA; AT D.,.R -S S/1.I/!\X CIVIL C!,SE NO ••••••.• " • • • 125 of 1900 · DEVEIDPMENT LTD ........ ..' ••••••••• PLAINTIFF VlRSUS THE; DftR ES S/1.L'UM CITY "'· RULING The '-'PPlic::mt h.<1s filed this Ch::imboT Applicntion for an order th .. 1t this court restr~\in the r0spondent through an order of tempornry injunction from evicting the applicnnt from the suit premises pendin~ determimtion of the suit now filed. An nffidnvit deponed to by the npplic:-mt Alphonce Nicos Buholwo ho.s been filed in support thereto. The mnin renson for the order is th:::it he hcis invested n lot of money to the tum~ of Tshs. 2J.6,oooiooo ,:,1d therefore he will &"uffer irrep-::r.:cbl8 loss if he is kept out of the: prcmiS()So The respondent, on th'° other hnd opposed thE: applic,--::tion. Mr .. H.1gnp,C1 submitted th,t :-1s foe .::greement upon which the npplicnnt is basine his claim w2s tarmin,ted .:::ind pplicnt evicted, then surely he is no longer .o.n occur,ier of tho pr0misese And he added th/:\t if tho order ±or injunction is to be gr::mted thnt will ,;,,.,,:;, .. :,;; to restoring the ngreem6nt, Secondly he st.:1ted th::.t the applicnnt c::m. only carry on business 0.1 the sri t p.r·cmises if he is r.illowed to do so by the respondent, which so f::;r hn.s not bt:cn done, in view of the termin,tion of the esreemento I h,wo considered the nrgument.1:: '.".',""',ised by Mr,, Msirikale for the opplic,nt. Unfortun.'.!tely they f·--.11 short of the criteria, laid down in v.::rious .:rnthorities on the m-:-itter, including A'.!TILIO VS. I'1BOWE -9--§..J!QQ• One of th0 crcterio for th<) issuc1nce of a tempor::,ry injunction is where the loss complr.iined of c;::mnot be compens::-ited by way of d,?.r,1::.,gcs. The apr.l3..ic.c-:nt hos sb,tcd th::it he hns e)-,rpended some Tshs. ·210 million on improvements 3 etc .. at the suit premises. This surely if he wins the case, the respondent me:y be ordered to compensate him, upon proof of cov.rse;. .Secondly and m.::iy be equ.::-:1 importr.mt is the foct th.::it if the ogrecment, upon which w::-,s the b~sis

• 2 - for j:he crpplic2nt doin,; bu.sim•ss nt the suit premises has been rescinded by the respon0.-,rnt wi.wther wrongly or otherwise .• How then cnn this Court ord{;;I' the DPI.'lic-:nt to be restored on the suit premises? I he2rd sμbmi8G:.r,n,,,_, 11y Mr,, Nsiriknle le-::irned counsol for the : 0 pplic·mt but with respect I h,we not found th 0 ] re::,·7ons ndvrmcc? sufficient tc moyr;; this c,mrt into grcnt:i,ng the order. In the premises I decline to g:c:.i1t the, tempornry injunction pr<::yed for by the opplic:·nt, Cosi.:t, to be in c,-:iuse., 6/8/1999 i-- ~ 6th Au;;ust, 1999 \ \ Cornm~ F. So Hshote - E'.D:R Mr. Mscrik-=:tle for th:;, Applic·mt CC: Festa Court: Delivcrwl in Ch, 0 .mbcrr; this 6th August, 1999 in the pre:s(mce of Mr •. Msirikol,:: for the i.ppl:icnnt rmd Mr. Sc1ngnwe/. M.:cg,_mgn for the Respondent. 6/8/1999