Nehemiah Mugasa vs Medical Stores Department (Civil Case No. 218 of 1996) [1998] TZHC 2202 (16 December 1998)

KAT .. RGEYA, ,J. IN THF. HTGH r:omn OF TAN7.ANT A AT OAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 18 OF 1qqfi NEHEMIAH MUGARA .......... . . ...... PT.AT NTT FF VF.RRIJR MEDICAL STORES DRPARTMRNT ............ ORFRNDANT R_ U T,. T N <:; This is a ruling in respect of preliminary ohjectinns rniRA by the plaintiff regarding t.he locus st.anifi of the At.torrny General to represent the befendant - Medi.cal Stores Departrnen1: (herein-after to be referred to as MRO). The plaintiff, Nehemiah Mugasn, rept·eRent.P.o hy Mr·. Mage:=rn, Adocat~, is suing the Medical StorAs nepnrtment for terminal benefits amounting to shs. 21,813,300/=. ReRponding to this.claim t. he At. torney Gf.!neral proceeded to dr·nw 11p n nrl f i 1 e n wr· i u·.en statement of defence on behalf of the Oefendnnt, Medical stores Department, which act triggered on the present preliminnry object.ions. The plaintiff vehement.] y arg11eR t·.hat t.he At l".nrrrny Generr.1] cannot. represent. the oP.f endnt. hP.r.r.111se .it . .i :=: not n. government department nor was plai.ntiff R governmRnt. AmplnyP.e. For clarity, let. us first put. facts hA;:ir. The pl"3intiff wns employed by the Government. of the Unit.•P.n RP.p11hl i.c of Tnn?.nn"ii=t an<l worked at Central Medical Stores within thP. Mini:=:try of Her.11th. By Act No. 13 of 1993, an autonomous department col led Medicat Stores Department was established. Some of the w_orkP.rs- of the Central Medical stores (which was di.sso]ved upon the establishment of the Medical Rt.ores nepartmP.nt) were ret11rned to the Ministry of Health while some were tr.1ken over hy the MRdir.r.11 Stores Department. The plaintiff was nmong those who werP t.nken over by the new creat,ire, the medicAl At.nrA:=: DepnrtmAnt, anrl wRA Rppointed a Warehouse Attendant. Aft.er n yer of :=:ervi~e in 1

,. that capacity, to be precise, on 8\6\qs, thP. plaintiff wnR caught up in the retrenchment exer.cj SP. r.nrr i P.d 011t. hy t.he ·Government in its various offir.P.s nnrl <lPpnr-frm:rnt.s. HP. wM:: ,l11ly paid what was considered to be his ful 1 hAnRfH.s. UnimprP.sP.d hy this exercise plaintiff filed the preRent !=mi t. "demanding payment· of terminal benefits from the defendant as fol1.ows:- (a) Subsistance allowance 13,000x313x=Shs.R,138,000 (b) For children 13000x313xl =RhR.4,0fi9,000 2 (c) For defendants(?) l ... 3,00_9-.t:1.?.C..3 2 =Rhi=;. i:;,101_.sno (d) 3 years (36 months) Ralary n::;ul t·. from ciP.fP.n<lnnt· 's decision to teiminate thP. plaintiff from sP.rvir.e = ( e) ( f ) (g) sh.2,340,000 One month salary j n li.P.11 of not i r.P. On transit allowance 7,000x3daysx7 = shi=:. fiS,000 = sh.147,.000 Freight charges for pl.aintiff's pArsonal effAr.t from Yombo Dovya to TRC (1 tons) = sh.10,000 (h) Fare from Dar es SrJ.1.aam to tfansio (PlainUff's pl.acA of Domicile) by rail 16AOOx5 (i} Freight charges for pJ.aintiff's pRrsonnl transported as parcel (3 tons) = i:;hs. 790,000 = sh::.. lQ..L-000 (j) Hiring costs 'l'otn 1 Rhs. Refore filing the said suit however, Mr. Magesa: AdvoatA, sent n demand notice to the Director General, MP.di.cal. Stores Department, who in turn contacted the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health. It would seem, the latter d11ly contacted the Attorney General who proceeded to prepare a WrittRn Rtatement of dAfence followed by an appearance in court of a St.ate At.t:.nrney nn hi R behalf hence the ensuing objections. Mr. Magesa vigorously argued that the defendant hP.ing an autonomous body establi.shed by At 11 of 1gq1, with its nwn Ronr~ /.

.. of Directors, has the right to defend the s,1it on its own r1n<l can't be defended by the Attorney as it is not part of the Government. He insisted that the written st.atement. of efene having been filed by a wrong party, the Defendant Aho11ln he taken ' to have failed to file one and threfore plaintiff is entitle<l tn judgement in terms of O. 8, Rule 1.4 of t.he r.i vi 1 Pror.en11re r.o<le. In response,. Mr. NgwemhA, St.ate At. t.orney .- argueo thri t-. the plaintiff wa.s a civil servant. unner the Ministry of He;:ilt,h_: t-.h;:it. hA was retrenched and pai.d all hi.A ones_. r1nrl t.hat. t.hAnforP. the Attorney General has a locus standi. When given r.hance t.n research on the matter, the State Attorney instead of re- appearing in court for frther oral s11hmissi.on filed ri written submission in which he carried furth1H his rirguments ril ready advanced. Mr. Ngwembe insisted that the defendant i.s not a r.nrporate body which can sue or be sued but that it is a governmAnt Department within the Ministry of Health i.n terms of s. (1) nf the Establishment Act, Act 3\93; thrit its operritions rire dependent on the approval of the Minister (R.4(2)() ann (tf oY the Act); that the Depr1rt.ment 's funding, among nt.hArs, i R madA 11p of funds voted for by the t>arU.ament. (A. 1] ( l) ( c) of the Act.).: that Government employees or those of prirast.atal Organisations can ha transferred or seconded to the neprirtment (s.10 (4) of the Act); that the final appellate body is the Minister for Health (S.12 of the Act) who is also empoweren to make Reg1,latinns for the better giving effect to the Act. (s.17). Mr. Ngwembe, State Attorney, chargen in the alt.Rrntive that even if it were to be considered a legal entity, by vi.rt11e of being "within the Ministry" of Health ris per s.](l) of thP. Establishing Act, the Medical Stores nep;:irtment deserves to he defended by the Attorney Gem~rr.11.. He q1rnlifiP.<i this hy pointing to annexure "0 11 to the plaint which .iA taken by pl;:i.int.iff t.o hA r1 3

letter of appointment he Rays that as it. lac:ks neceRRRry parti.cul.ars which should form an appointment. letter, likA salary, terms of employment i.e. permanent or tempnrRry, whether pensionable or .not, it should be taken t-o he mP.rely a joh ' description. Finally, Mr. Ngwembe rayen for leave to amenrl the written statement of defence hy inclurling relevant doc11mentR whj c:h were not attached hy his preder.essnr who a11t.hnrerl the written statement of Defence. Mr. Magesa, Advocate, for Plaintiff also responded in writing but not without fuss. He hitt.ery complained that one cannot start with an oral submissi.on and then embark on written submissions and that thiR :i.s an ahURA of t.he court. process. He prayed that the submissi.on should he st.ruck off. Tn the alternative, Mr. Magesa, argued that as the Attorney General has come to the a.i.d of Defendant the issue ·is whP.t-.her OP.fenn;:rnt 1 s governmnt Department or a government. inRtit11t.inn henR thR ;:irgument th;:it plr1i.ntiff waR a govP.rnmPnt· P.mployP.P iR it·,·P.lf!v;rnt as the A-G has not come to Court. in ;:iid of plai.nt.iff. RP.lying on Ann. A ;:ind B of the plaint Mr. MageRR insist.Rd that it w;:is categorically stated that. employees who wo11ld hR t;:iken ovP. by MSD would cease to be government employees and that therefore calling it (MSD) a government department tR a contradi.ction in terms. In his further arguments, Mr. Magessr1, observed that the Attorney General could come in to defend the MSD only if what was being challenged was the Minister's decision b11t that this matter does not concern the Ministry of health. He concluded that. if the Ministry of Health decided to put the plr1intiff on the list of rettenchees long after he had ceased heing its employee it was its own problem having nothing to do with plaintiff's rights. J will start with Mr. Magesa~s complaint reg;:irding Mr. Ngwemhe's act of filing a written suhmiRRion inster1a of ;:ippearing in court. to proceed wi.th an oral suhmisRion. Tt. is t.r11e t·lrnt. nn 1 e.::tve Wi:IR aranted for use of this .::tvenue hut· T havP. askP.r1 mvRe l f .. - . - - . . - ,. ·- , .. ... 4

whelher Mr. Ngwembe's style occRssione<l Rny dRmRge or inj11stice lo the other party. In my opinion there is none. Mr.. MRgeRR's complaints would have been justified if nn chance WRR given tn him to respond. However the wr.i.tten :::whmission WRR RVRiled t.o h.irn ' in response of which he also filed a writ.ten submissi.nn. Tn the circumstances, his argument thRt this i.s R type of R defect which entitles this court to throw out Mr.. Ngwemhe'R submission i:::: untenable, for, what j s import.ant. i.s not. t.he mRnmr ;:i s11hm i RR ion is made but. its ::::ubstance. Now tur.ning to the main arguments, T t.hink,. for r.1Rr.it.y, t.hP. Annexur.es to the plaint (A - n) on whir.h the plaintiff hinges his i'lrgument.s, shoul.<1 he subst;mt.i.r.1] 1 y repro,'111r.ed, even at: t.he rlr1nger of m.::iki.ng this ruling tmnecessar:ily long. Upon establishment of MSD, possi.hly responding tn wnrkerR inquer ies, the Ministry of Heal th respondeo to O'T''l'U' R .1 et t.er by writing letter Ref. HEA\150\I\Vol.I\ ..... dated 5\8\Q4 (Annex11re "A") to Katibu wa OTTU, Tawi la Boha.ri ya Madawa, whose contents were as follows:- "Yah: MSTMAMO WA A,J_IRA KA'U.1LJ19.B_RL._YA MADAW Rejea barua yako y;:i t.Rrehe 4 \8\ 1 q94 kuh11su ~11a 1 r1 hi 1 ·i hapo juu (uliandika kwR 1.ughi=I YR kiingerA7.a). Nimeelekezwa ni.kutni'lri.fu kwamhi:I kuanzi.a tarehe 1\7\1qq4 Bohari ya Madawa .i.mewachukua wi'lt.um.i shi wak?. (i.livyowahit.aji wenyewe) nR kuwRajir.i kwa mai:.hart.i. yao (MSD). Watumii:;hi wr.1li.ok11wepo nR amhao hawakuwahitaji wamerudishwa Wizarani. Rivyo basi. kuanzia tare he 1 \ 7\l 994 mli ohak.L=i Bohari ya MRdawa siyo waltttnishi wr1 Wi.zr1ta t.en;i. Mwaj i r_i wen11 ni Boh;u:i ya MRdawa na ndi.yP. Mamlaka ~rnhihi ya k11mu11li,rn mr1mho yot.A kuhusu A,TTRA 7.AntJ kw;:i s;:iR;:i hi v ·i . " On 28th September, 1994, the plaintiff wRs appointed i'l wareho11se attendant of MSD Vide letter Ref.No. CMS\PF\1144\27 (Annex11re 11 0°). The body of the said letter runs as fol.lows, 5

RF.; APPOINTMENT AS A WAR1UfOURR AT.T~NOANT •it. am pleased to inform you that. you hr1ve been nppoi.nted t.o he a warehous~ attendant within the tor1ding ;:ind Oispr1t.f'.h Sectibn as Inchr1rg~ of diRpat.h A with effect from 1st October, 1994. As .a warehouse a.tt.endant your duties ,rnd rei:;pomd.hil j t-.i es will be as follows: (a) Recei.vi.ng R opi es of r!RTNR anrl r.vs for r.11st.omet·s ;=u,,l Zonal Medical Stores from Rr1les Rect.inn. (b) Distribution of B copies and CVs t.o respectfve groups for collection of drugs and Hnspi.tal supplies. { :i.:i.i) Receiving drugs and hospit;:i l supp.lies from r.eRpP.ctive groups f ot is_sue to cust.omArs. (iv) Preparation of dispatch 'A documents. (v) Physical isuing of drt1gs and Hor::pi.t.a] r::uppl ies t.n ctlstomets and Zonl Medi.cal Stores. (vi) Packing <!ind r,oac'J.i.ng Drugs r1nd tfm;pital supplies to Customets and Zonal Medical Rt.or.As. (vii) Accepting any other dutiAs as may be ;:issignAd by higher authorities. As the incharge of dispatch your immP.diatA ManagAr will be the Loading and dispatch ManagP.r. W:i.shing you alJ thA hest.. SGD: D. R. WANZAGt P.B~~QNNF.T., MANAGF.R~ The said letter was issued by MSO. For reasons undisclosed, the Ministry of HAalth, save for Ann. "A", did not clarify the status of Ex-central medi.cr1l stores tmployees and related fuatters ;:is vividly displr1yP.d ~ in its further correspondence ~ith Msn as lr1te as 1995 (AUgust). In its letter Ref. HRC.452\l.A4, dated 23rd August, 1995, (Ann.B), the said Ministry wrote to the Director General, MSD, as·follows,

~ ' EX-CEKTRAf.i MRt>tcAr .. STORRS F.MPT,OYRRS RMPt,OVMF.N'T' STA~tll AMO PRRVIOUS TRRHTNAt_RNRFTTS Please refer to your lAtter. RAf.No.CM8C\M\1\VoJ.TT:l49 of 16th August, 1995 r.egard.i ng the nhove ment i onP.o i:rnhjec::t.. ' I would like to inform you tht Rx-Rmployees of t.hA ent.rRl Medical Stores who have remained with the Medical Rt.ores Department will be treated as follows:- (a) They will all cease to bA Government Employees with effect from 30\6\1.994, ;;incl hence they Rhouln hA employed by Medical Stores 0ApRrt.ment with Affect frnn1 l\7\1.994. (b) The terminal benefits of the empl.oyees who were serving on Permanent and PAnsionRhlA terms will he frozen and be paid hy thA Anvernment Rft.er thA ret..i.:r.ement age.· (c) Employees who Rre servi.ng nn OperRt.ional Rervice Terms w:i.11 cont.inue to cont.rihut.e t.o NPF ;rnd the Ministry of HP.al.th wil 1. t.nrnsfer thAj r onc111nP.nts ·in order to enable Medical RtnrAR Department to liRse with NPF Hqrs. Kindly communicate with us so t:.hRt we i;;m providP. yo11 with the necessary NPF documents for your ner.essary Rr.t.ion. Yours Sim-:erA 1 y ,1. N. Nang 1 11ng 1 11la for PRINCTPAT, RF.C:RB'T'ARY" Treadj ng on th is letter, the Med.i. c,::i l Rt.ores nepart.ment. i ss11P.n a general notice to its workers. This not.i r.e is dat.ed ?,qth A11gw:;f' .. 1995 and it is Ann. C t.o the plai.nt.. Tt. nms ;:is follows:- "Kwa Waf ;rnyakazi Wot.e, Bohari ya Madawa. YAH; AJIRA NA MASt.;AHI YA NVllt:1.--KWA WATJ!~Il:H:fl __ _ WALlORUWA BOUARJ VA MAD~~~ Tunapenna kuwafahr:1m:isha k11w,3 Wi7,arr1 YR AfyR mnamo t:RrAhA ?.3 Auguat 1. 995 i.mat.oa t..-.mkn 1 AkA rAPmd juu YR Aj i.f·A nl'\ 7

maslahi ya nyuma kwa watumi.sh.i. walioknwr1 kat_ik;:i utum:ishi wa Wiiara ya Afya na kubakir1 Med:i_r.;:il StnreR nepartment kama ifuatavyo: 1.. tJtumishi wao Serik.alin.i. unam;:il i:dkr1 mnr.tmo t.r1rehe 30\06\94, na hivyo wanapa,sw;:i kuFlji.t·iwa na MP.di.cal St·.on-1R Department kuanzia larehe· 01\07\1994. ?.. Masi.ahi ya nyuma k.wa watumiRhi wr1l:iok11wa kat.ikr1 rnashart.i ya kudumu na. Pension yr.1 uzeeni yr1t.ahifr1c'lhiwr1 tM kill ipwr1 nr1 Ser.ikali pr1J.e mtumishi. at.ak;:ipost.aafu . . 'l. Watum.ishi wali.okuwa kr1t.ika 111;:u:,hr11·t·i ya OpP.rr1l-.innill Ser.vice wRt.aenne.le;i kur.hangia k1-1t.ik1-1 mifukn yao y1-1 awali ya NPF, n;:i Wiz;:ir.a i.tahr1mish1-1 Ny1-1raka :,:ote :d.nazohusika kt1wi'twe7.e:=;hr1 MP.di r.;:i 1 St.ores OP.p;:irtmP.nt· kuchang.i.a Mfuko wa NPF Mr!k;:io M;:ik1111. Kut.okr.1na na tif af anuz'; htm. 11onao?. i wr1 MSD 1ina0Annr1 kowaf ahamisha kuwa ut1ash1ah11l i. k 1r1 maanda. li :d • vr1 h,H11a za ajlra kwa Wat.utn.i.sh:i wof.e_. nr1 ?.it.at.o.l.Awa picii zitakapokamilika. SGO: D. F.. Wr1n?.r1gi MENR,JA· U'l'UMT SH_l Nakla: Mwan?.a ZMS Td nga 7.MS 'l' fl hor r! 7,MS 'l'anga 7.MS Mt.war.a 7.MS Tawi lr1 01'TU Rohari yr1 Ma<'lr1wr1 Mrikao Mr1k1111 Da.r P.S S,3Jaam". Having carefully considered and analysP.rl thP. argt1mP.nts frontP.d hy the p.-3.rties; the varj_ous communicat inns rtR oAt.ai 1 P.nl y q110Led above and the law, including Act 1 of 1qq1_. T hnve reahP. r1 conclusion that th~ Attorney Gener.al':=; appearance Jn thi.R matt.~r is legally justified because MSn is a government Depart.mP.nt. though autonomous. 8

... on the f.r.1.ce of i.t., t.he pl;iint..i f fs' i'lrg11mrnt. mi'ly SP.P.m f.otcef.ul hut all this emn;ibd fr.om t.hP. fai.lure of t.hP. Minii:;t.ry o! Matth to clarlfy the legal st.and rAgarding the ex-P.mployeP.R of the tentral medical star.es upon it.R disi:;olut.i.on and stblishment of the Msn.· Instead, 0 the said Ministry and thP. MRn engagP.d in confusious communi.cat.ion::; whir.h lP.d peoplA (;rn<l justifiably so) like the present. plaintiff to beliP.ve that. thP.y were no longer Government employees! How elsP. co11Jc'J any reaonable employee ihterprete Ann. A, Rand c to the plaint (alteady quoted). Exh. B actually states r.at.P.gnr.ir.ally, "They will ceaze to be Govt. F.mplnyeP.s with effP.r.t·. from 30\6\1.994.: .. '', While Ann. C, notifies al.l employees, "Ut.umi shi wa.o Ser ikr1J i.n.i unama 1 i 7. i krt mnamn trtr.P.hP. 30\06\1994". 'l'he confusion and Uncertainty cl omHng hnth t-.hP. Mini st-.ry and MRO is vividly displayed whAn, aft.Ar t.hP. plaintiff had 1ndgAd thR claims, the MSD is on record (;:is per Ann. n to the plaint - a letter to plaintiff) informing hi.m (plaintiff) that his employer has always been the Ministry of Heal.th! Tn hi.A lP.t.ter RP.f. MSD\02\0012 dated May 24, t 996, the co11nt.P.r-p,nt. ninr.t.or General, MSD, informed plaintiff. "The Management of Medical St.ores Depart.mP.nt. has r.er.eived your letter with great surprise. 'T'his is her.ause our office has neither :i.sRued nor t.erm.inrit.Ar1 employment. of: hot only you, but r1tso any of t.he M.i ni st.ry of Her1l th employees working wi.t.h us. References show that your servi~eR were terminated through rettenchment hy your lr1wft11 employP.r - t.hP. Mini.st.ry of Her.1 J. t.h. Your. employer. also pa i.d a 1 J your t.P.rrn.i na 1 bP.nP. f i 1".R fo:r set"v:i ces r.ehdere<'i up t.o 30th ,T11nP. 1 qq5. q

Fol.lowing that .r.etrenchment, MRD whn remr1.ined r1s r1 r.11st.n<l:ir1n of ex-central Medica1 stores employees pending the nulfication of their employment. fr.om the government., hrid also the obligation to pay the henefi.tA whjch wr1s part nf your salary. These payments ,were mr1r'le agr.ii.nst. vour.her number 07019 of 6\7\95 which yon wrongly annexec'I ;:is r1n evidence of making MSD your. employer.". f?learly the above cont:rr1dictor.y r.omm11nir.r1t.ions r1rP. in<1ir:.::itivP. nf uncer.t.a:i.nty on the side of the Minist.ry ;:inrt MRn. However, the quest. i.on is, noes th i R 1mr.et·t.r1 i nty r.hr1ngP. f·.he truth; the legal sb1t.us oft.he employees r1n<l MRO vers11s t-.trn Ministry? Tn my conRidered views it c'lneRn't . 'T'he 1inr.P.1·t·.n i nty nnc'I r.onfmd onA may be gr.ounrls,. r1t. most_. of r.1 n i ms for rJr1mr1ges if t.hP.r.e is a cV:d.m and pr.oof t.hr1t t.hP.re w;:is ;:iny ·i nj11ry ;:if· r111 flowind therefrom. Now, back to my conclusion: why hrtve T held thr1t-. n,e At t.orney General hr1s a locus st;rnd i. First._. r1R r.i ght. l y 1=rnhmi t t.P.rl by Mr. Ngwembe, state Attorney, the import. of thP. whnlP. nf Ar.t 11 of 1. 993 c] early ] er1ves the MSO 1mdP.r the cnnt.ro l nf t· he Minis ITy of Health - section 3(1) thereto, is very r.r1tP.gorir.al: "There .i.s hereby established ~it.hi n the Mi n.i strv responsible :f.or health r.1n r111tonomo11i:1 nepar.t.ment. t.o he known as t.hP. Med:i.r.r1l St·.orei:1 DP.part.ment" (emphasis mine}. With this ki.nd of J.;ing11r1gP., wi t:h reRper.l" 1.o Mr·. Mr1gP.Rrl, T r'.r1r11wl hr.ing my mind to nm wi.t.h hi.s rnhmissinn t.hat MSn is 0111'.side t:lrn Mi.nistr.y of Heal.th and that thP.reforP. P.xr.l11sive]y 011t.si<'Je t·.he government ci.rc]As wh.1ch wo11ln ent.;iil the exr.l11si.on of the Attorney General's participr1tion in s11it.s frtr.ing it. 'T'he plrtin · meaning of those words (i.n s.(1 )) do not. need any other mode of interpretation othP.r than the plr1in mP.aning r11le 10

of interpretation which ohviously wo11l r1 go r.nunt.fn· t.n Mr. Mages a' s interpretation. S. 3 ( l) is tht=m Ropp l ementecl hy d wide range of controls by the Government - operations (s.4); funding (s.13); appellate r.nntrol in cr1sP. of d.isptlt.e (s.12} - .in frir.t. though a11t.nnomot1s (as is always the ca.se wit.h such creatur.es 1.mrler varin11.s ar.h::: of pa-r:-1 j ament.) i.t. :i.s bea:r.ly oub=dde the cl r1ws nf t.he Government. Ser.ondly, as will be noted hy t.hA Appl ir.ant\plaintiff, A1 1.3 of 1993 does not make thi.s creature (MRn) a r.orporat-e horly whj ch can sue or be sued. The al J.egAcl i. nclepen<lenr.e then.. in rea 1 terms is hard t.o find. Thirdly and lastly, again, ai:; rightly s11hm.it.t.ed by Mr. NgwAmbe, i.f true that. p]aint.iff'R Atnploymetd w·it·h MSO WAR new, different from his ear.lier employment. with the government, lngir. would require t.hr1t then should have been new term!=; of employment. However, throughout the p leaci i ngs i nr~ 1110 i ng f-.he annext.11r.ei=: there is no let.t.er which c;=in he t.P.rmP.d ;:is hP.ing a letter of employment wit.h MRO. The only lP.t.ter seP.mingly rP.liP.~ upon iR Ann. "n", r1.lre;:iny quot.ea ;:ihove: ;:inrl which only in<"lir.;:it.e:=; t.hat he had been appointed ai=: a "warP.hn11se At.tP.n<l;=rnt". 811re l y, t. hj s cannot he taken to be ;:i let. t.er of emp 1 oyment. - it. i R ju:=; t. ;:i letter pr.escd.hi.ng h1.s new out.ies, for, it. lr1r.ks all partir.111;:ir·s common to Al.] 1.ett.ers of employment. - i.e s;:ilary terms: conditions of employment, whether perm;:inP.nt or t.empor;:iry, termin;:it.ion and r.e1.ate<l. In conclusion, t should nd. t.er.nt.e wh;:it. T hrtve ;:i lxe;:idy expressed - all the ptobl.emR were r.;=im:;e<l hy t.he Mini :=;t.r.y of He;:ilt.h in failing to be cat.egorir.;:il on t·_hP. i::U1t·.11s of thP. M8n ;:incl i t.s oper;:it..i.ons. 'rhis is cl P.;:ir from t.hP. r.ont-. rar1 i r.tory .. unr.1 enr commumicat ions aR partly revea lec'I in t: he v;:ir i mis l P.1-. t.ers quoted 1.1

. in full. above. These contradictions hy thA MiniRtry'R nffir.iRlR however do not change the law: t:ntA: t.hAir Rr.t.innR coulrl mRkA some ind.:l.viduals suffer. due to misrAprARi:>.nt.,:11·. i.nns or wrong di.rect.ives given but the consequences of this is to clRim for ' damages upon proof of such injuries and nothing more. Tn t.hA pr.Amises the preli.minary object.inns RrP. rliRmisRed. ThR AttnrnRy General is legally entitled t.o defAnd MRD Rnd by this oraer he should be made a party. Now, turning to Mr. NgwemhA 1 R Application t.o amAnd the written statement of dAfence: lngir. wo11l~ nnly hRve it thRt RR there was this confusion regarding represAnt.atinn, par1:ies may hr.1ve heen clouded hy the same t.o t.he ext.Ant of not. hA i ng r.1 P.;:::it· .::is to what was supposed to be include<'! in t.hA pler.tdings. Mr. Ngwemhe, Rtt.e Attorney: stated that. his application is haserl on the fact. that he :i.s not t-.he ;rnt.hor. of thP. wri 1·.b=rn stat.emAnl. of defence ··cur.r.ent.ly on record, anrl that. there are i mpor t.,rnt. communi.cr1U.ons releva.nt to the just. nAtP.rmi nation of thP. cont.r.ovet:sy which were not at.t.achecl. As t.hP. ma i. n purpose of pleadings is to ass:1.st the court. t.o di sr.over t.he rP.nl i i::s11AR i::o as to re;:ich a jt1st finding in respect of thA r.ont.rovA1·sy hP.tweAn the parties, courts shoold, unless t.hP.rA is Axr.Apt. i ona 11 y goor1 cause to deci.de otherwise, afford chanr.P. to parties: wherenever it is possible, to amend thAir plP.r1dings. Tt is no wonrler that this wisdom is expressly put. in our lriw,. O.VT_. Rule 17 of t.hP. Civil Procedure Code, whi.ch provides, "ThP. Coutt may ;:,t any str1ge of t.hA pror.Aed i ngs allow either party to alter or amAnd his plAadings i.n such manner. or on such terms as may he just, and all such a.metidment.i; shal 1 he mr1dP. ;:ii=; may hA nAcessary for the purposP. of rlAtP.nni n i ng t.he n=ia l quest.ions in controversy hP.t-.wP.en t·_hA p.::irt i AR". Jn the premises Mr. Ngwembes appticritinn cannot bA fr111lt.Arl and it AtAndA allowed. .1 ,.

• • • • .. On the hoie thtefor~, the Applicr1nts\Plr1int.iffs preliminary .cibjectiohs stand dismissAd. ThA At.tornAy GAnAral hr1s a 1ocus standi in this mattAr. nR the MSD is rt government. Department. Th~ Attorney GenArai to hA joined as a party. At th~ sameU.ine Mr. Ngwembe is applicr1tion to amend the w_ri t.t.P.n st.r1t.ement. of defence ls granted rtnd the same tn he filed within twenty nne d;:iys from the date of del.ivery of this r1Jling. Thereafter, the plaintiff to file a reply if any, within 14 days of being served wi.th the amended Written Stntement. of defenr.e. The nistrict Regi.stt;lr, ff.i.gh · Court of 1'anzr1nir1 .- tn s11perv i sA the r.omp 1 i ;mce with the schedtjle, after which, the record is to he plrtr.ed hefnre the judge in chambets for ist Pretrial conference fnr fixing r1 spAed t r.ack and mAd.i.r.1t. i.on. · drth~ .- 11n 1 AAS another pn:d i mi nnry objection .i.s r.rt1.sed 1 .i.n which cai=:e the mattP.r wnul d then r.ome up first for hAar.ing of the same. ThA 1st Pretrial CnnferAnce, or hearing of the preliminary objections, if r1ny, as thA CARA may, to be fi~ed seven days after completion of the p]Artdings. Nn otder is made as to costs. .. {t. R. Kr1legAya) ,llJnGF. t3