Nuru Rashid Mohamed and Others vs City Council of Dar Es Salaam and Another (Civil Case No. 31 of 1994) [1999] TZHC 142 (29 July 1999)

vIVIL C/3.8 no. 31 CF 1994 J. Some 261 iesidents of City of Dqr es sql~~m hqve broi..11..;ht this suit ;:i_.,:iiG::;t tbc:: def0nc'.Ants in which they clA.im ::i. number of reliefs. The first c;e:fend"lnt hA.s rA.ised three points of objection. Firstly, it is ,qrguec1 th:-1t the suit is not mintqinble qGinst ths first defendqnt becquse, required to coply with section 97 of the LocA.l Government (UrbA.n Autt10::. 1 i tie:.;) Act 9 No 8 of l982. Under Section 99 of the bove - mentioned Act the plintiff w;:is required to effect service by delivering it to the ·civtirmA.n or the Chief Executive Officer of the first defendot. Inste:::id, qad this is Admitt•d, A dema~ notice ws served on the Chief Government Vohrnr, l·'iir:i:..try of L:,,.1;,s. It is lleged by the plqintif:f t1rn.t notice wrn ultimtely brought to the qttection of tb City Dir0ctor nd Of the City Soliciter. I think it c~~~ot aow be rcued upon qny rqaonqble ground thqt the requiroraects of aection 97, qforacited, .qre m;=i·:F;tory, The position ts oc by st;,tute od if further "'!U thori ty i•s required it is reA. di ly :::iv.::i i lqble froi, ci3cisions of the court of A~~~ql qd from tie Court. In one of those n • • • thr.it si.n-:::c t:i)d provisions of section 97 of the Locql Governm0nt (Locl Autdorfti0s) Act, No, 8 of 1982 qpply to the suit in question 9 non- compliqnce t-ji th renders th 2 suit unm intq in.,bleQ ~s.ri:-1 Muni·cip::il _ CQ_uncil on.. Lyr.:,muyq Construe tion ~o. Ltd.

2 Civii hppeql No. 25 df 1989. So b•3 it !-Ji th this suit~ The first bjctioa would succeed. Secondly, it is ccote~_c:8;:.; the s.econd defendr-rnt hs been \·irongly joinzd to t;:-:::e 3ouit. The plinti·f'f' _concedes the misjoinder~ ===t"'...tbou.;:h b.e correctly :otrgues th:,t qlone cnnnot be q 6 ro .. rnd upon ;.-1;~:icb t.be ➔ suit should be dismi:c:sed:. I gree entirely tht 1;1:Lsjoindor is :::i curqble defect. Th.e s0cond objection -10L:ld, 'tI-toro:f:'o.rep f':c-iil. I think the need to decide thra ttii:;'.'[1 objGction does not qrtso in view of whqt follows my fnc'i:".ng on tbi3 first ground. Upon heqring leqrnod counsel, 90d upon considering those qrguments, qnd upon my fiodiags in respect of the first objcctioo 1 the suit is dismissed with costs. Deli ver<3d. Absent (Served) r 1 Ir • N dy-9 n <'Ibo SGD. J- .·I•'i • · N/.Ci:PJ\T J A JUDGE 29/7/1999 26/10/1999