africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • All jurisdictions →

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[1999] TZHC 140Tanzania

Flavian Mgori on Behalf of Others vs National urban Water Authority (Civil Case No. 197 of 1994) [1999] TZHC 140 (30 July 1999)

High Court of Tanzania

Judgment

r . IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE N0.197 OF 1994 . FLAVIAllJ MGORI · on behalf. of 127 OTHERS•••••••••••••·•••• PLAINI'IFF VERSUS NATIONAL URBAN WATER AUTHORITY RUN ING •••••• DEFEWJ\NT UBESHI,J: On 13/7/98, this court allowed an application filed by the defendants that t.lle plaintiffs furnish further and better particuJ.ars, to enable the defendants to file their written-statement of defence. The plaintiff through the.1.r··coiinsel Mr. Lutema, had requested for 30 days within which to furnish those particulars. Instead of so providing the particulars as ordered, the plaintiff, on 8/9/98, and without leave of the court, filed ant. amended.plaint. The defendant have therefore taken objection on the two issues above. The defendants coend that as the plaintiffs have failed ta comply with the court- order,the filed plaint is .not in compliance with Order VII Rule 4, the suit be dismissed. And because the amended plaint was filed without leave of the court, it be struck out for being filed contrary to Order VI Rule 17. Without belabouring much on the points raised,I think I am inclined to agree with the submissions ·made by the counsel t the defendant. In any case the plaintiffs were to have filed their reply qn the preliminary objections by 19/7/99 but to date th.ey have not dor so~ In the · premises I have no alternative but to dismiss the suit in its entirety with costs. Delivered before Tenga for defendants and iri absence of the plaintiffs • . .. ... .., t' i • j (.,. Ii. ril \ . ·. ,.(-t!<i. 'A. G. BUBESHI JJJDGE 30/7 /99

Discussion