Said Mohamed and Others vs State Travel Service Ltd and Others (Civil Case No. 296 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2210 (14 July 1998)

TN TH'!~ lHGH COURT or TAN7,ANJ A {DAR RS SAiAAM DTSTRTCT REGTSTRY) CJVll, CASR NO. 296 OF .1997 A rl) MJHMBO & 01'HEHS ...•• PL!\ TN'rIFFS/DECREEBOIDRH STATB TRAVRL SERVICE LTD ..... DEFRNDANT/JUDGEMRNT DEBTOR

1. 'l'OUH!SM SF.RVTCF.S TANZANJA)
2. PRESTi1BNTIAL PARASTATAi.. } ....... OR,JECTORS/APPLICANTS SRCTOR REFORM COMMISSION) RUf,ING the ,1 pp l. j <.:,1 t ion by I l t8 oh j Ac f 1,1 rs/ Appl i Crin t::-.: ( .TJ? .. n.r:.XBl!l..BiP·_y) <ei,; Tanzan i.8 [,tel and p_resjdf_ntj,2-J __ )?ra.statal Sector RefQn!! Commis:;;_io_n) to br.-tve A garnishee order issued against State Travel .Servi_ces, T.,l:d (or.igin;J] Defendant/,Jidgrnen.t debtor) :raised. Mr there is no pr iv .i. t y nf con tr.act in Urn t ran:::;;:u:: ti.on wld. ch 1. ook place hetw<:ien the only relevr:nit parties as exe3mplif ie<l hy the in l,3 1 ,v a:C:; it referred to m,31:ters of law and 11ot mat te:r::;; of fact. Tn tAply, Mr Mujulizi for th Applic~nts/Objectors ma.:i.ntAined U1at the question of 1ocu:; sla.ndi pE\ggAd on privity of ,·.

s a k a r , o n c i. v i l P r- CH'. 1-:i <l u r P. ( R I II Ed i t i c 11 , , ·1 q q G J{ '-J p I i. 1 ii , Vo J . l T , !t ..... ( pagP- '.10:18) <Hi<l t:hAt it, any c;:i:P. the,_:; objector {PSRC) afiS;l,'- 1h;.i1·. pos:il·i.on hy vh·tui-! of h( ➔ i11g ,1n nffiJ:jr1l. rc.:icr~ivAr of Stal A trr-1v1'lJ S(~J'.'\d<::P.;::.; Lt.<1 wh:i.cl·1 by u-p: (PSRC:) -1.1thority Wi-lf', ::..:ol(l to the 1st objec.'.tn:r. that I lii:> pre] .i.nd.ncitY object:i.on;:_; sJiuuld bA <1.i;:::ndsi->P.<l. con Cf1- n i nu -i 11 e q u es t i on o f pr .i. vi t y o f cont r ,3 c t: o r· locus ~ t and i J s Ji o 111 d :i n.t:enllec.1 1:o 111':' 1 ;,i;:~te, among 0U1P.rs, I he Ji;-w.i.s of hit.; an;_iumP.rd: --- privity of contract. It was specjfJcally enacteJ to take carA of intet:P.sts of parU es who are not privy to the contra.ct but wl-10

l • " / ,,i' r.on,I·1·FJ<'.I H nr to. O.XXT, Rule 57(1) C:PC, is Vf:;ly cler11ly W01(1ed, attacJ·11ne11t w)v1.t the court j_s s11pposed to do is t:o procee<l to invest.iale the m;,tter - of course the objector/claimant, hAving Th A HU J P C ) A ,3. r 1 y f> 1i OW S 1 h , ➔. t U l A l I l.l r<1l , of "vrj vj 1.y of C(>lrl::n-icL nr locus st.And il' was r:invj :-;agi?.d touncl l: o

4 .· aur.11n, with RulP.: ](1) nf n.XTX, r:pr: p:rc1vi_rles, ,;i],1 1 ') l /, fit wlli-it.. nnA can r.iyht1y c,d1 1i1Fi_t1ers of fi-ic:1s. ThP. J:.--1w ;:;rA 1hosH cont,3_i_1iing ;::;t;::i_tAn,ents .reg::nding thA enr-ictn1Pnts of P x < : 1 l l <h~ < l fr l.l Iii ..-1 f r i d ,, v i I. H . thP.n just AJgu1nAnlF1ti.VA points )Jl_ll.

.. , l ', ,. s 14/7/98 _.,