Bernadi Saiba Kimario vs Donat Mtana Assenga (Civil Case No. 6 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2509 (16 December 1998)

J=l' .THF. .HI(la OOUR'.t- O'F ;t'ANzA.N!A ATARUSHA CIVIL CASE,N0.6/1997 BERN.ADI $AI.BA KIMARIO ••• • •• VERSUS I! 0 ~ "O'Y-ff" "! @19 . - . '. :c..".?Q'.Ji,!;!JJSJ.+£ ;· '►,.._.,, • •• •- r • "'• • RULING · Mr. Mt@ivai, ~ _fK>UllSel, fo~ :t-b.&,,-defet\dan:t ha.,~ tt p.L;e:l,.:iridmu\r ..,ho·=,••fl t;..;, ·Uf'-' ... rr-.-,,J.·c ,,1..o,<; 1.l!,.: px'eee.nt, suit ' . . ' '•• /. ,:.··. . . . . is time barred becuse·it ·ought to have been filed within •. . . 1•·· .• . six months for the timt;; t!, ·.,..d .. :,,-tst1,.;.w.1-· i.rl'. ~~•<:: -•--,- ,,... , . .,,.,,. 1!eod t out·· I>a,Pe.l.'8° of representation o.f the deceased matters. ;.; Mughwai · cited Section. 9. (3) of c.A.P. 390 as :aut,hor:l:t.Y 'tor hi.a- :p,;·o;.-1:1.. ti.Qll ~ (3,):. -c...Ll?. '50, -,,-. _.., ct.Qd J; quote:- No pt·oo~~ oit!ll ~~~~ <in ~~t .. ,of a ause of action in tort which.)JY .. r./1;' this se<:t.ion has 6Ul'Vived agai the- .estate of a deceased person unless either . · (a) . Prceedings against him ;in respect of that cuse of action were pending at the date · of his death; or (b) Proceedings are taken .. in. t. th not ltJr than six·mo~ths after hie executor or>~dm:i,nistra.to.r took out representation. r-

... • • • 2 . .. . .. Learned counsel stated that the claim in ,the present suit is tortious because it is bared on COll"l!ertion of-property situated at Sakina area in,.,sha, ac'cord1.11,.:ti,,-t:~~- claim in paragraph No.5 (a) of the laint. .. Again, learned c:ounsel said that the othe:b · section is.,based on tress pass under paragraph 5 (b) of .th:e plaint • j -:.4,;•5, ','; •- " f I • • ' • and prayer (d) under paragraph No.-1·0. According to the learned counsel, the letters of Administration were sealed in Tanzania on 23.2.1994, and the present suit was instituted on 13.2 .. 1997 which moras.than·six months permitted under Section 9 (3) ()f C:.ioP, 390 qurted abpye • . i, .. ,,,·, Mr. Sang'ka, learned advocate for the respondent, · stated that provisions of C.A.P. 390 e not applicab.le in this ·suit • .- . · ....•.. ' • ,:· •.· • •·. • ·- 4· . Learned counsel ,aid .hat P.l;'.Q,vsion's of c.;.._.P. 390 ,are ·applicable to matters or; claitps o_f tortious nature arising from total accident, by an A,9-ministrator qf- d(t.ceased' estate. _ .Mr. Sang 1 ka. Scid that the claim in the 'present suit' was not a.rise from the 'fatal accident· at all. The learned counsel admitted that the letters of. Administrat'ion:.we;r!:! ·sealed: on· 232.·1994 · and the $I.lit was filed '· . on 13.2.1997 which is wall within three Y.eas. .. •· I, have.,···wi-th respect','' t6·,.}icept; the arg,mients of the· counsel for the responderit, A:Mr. Si:lng'ka t ·' te effct that the provisions !.'.' of C.A.P. 390 -ar~ ·not ··applic'able in .the .suit' before· the Court. ·l:f I have correctly understood the claim :fri the present suit, the plaintiff, as the Administrator ef the estate ,of the deceased, and the only heir to··the··propert-y, is claiming· a she in the business which ·•was being undertaken in part.inership with the applicant/plaintiff. Nothing to with fatal accident. Mr. Mughwairf· 1eed'-: <!'ounsel / ·iias ingeniously° read in the plaint, no doubt for the. benefit of his ciient, tμat the· suit is based on the tort of cori\rrioh and tress pass~ .. I am afraid, •• i; . ' • ·•: it is for fetched. The prelimiqiy objction i~·accordingly overruled. I _,