IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF

TANZANIA
(LAND DIVISION)
AT PAR ES SALAAM
LAND CASE 133 OF 2018 BETWEEN
EBENEZER SPIRITUAL CENTER ..............PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
IBRAHIM RAJABU ......................................... 1st DEFENDANT

HAMIS LEBOI ................................................. 2nd DEFENDANT

HAMISI MKOMBWE ........................ ........... 3rd DEFENDANT

NEEMA LAZARO ................................. 4th DEFENDANT

NAHAMU MTENGELE ...... ........... .................. 5th DEFENDANT

ALLY MOHAMED MDUGI ............................... 6™ DEFENDANT
MOHAMED MTAMANI ....................................7™ DEFENDANT
PAWA ABDALLAH MCHAFU ......................... 8™ DEFENDANT

MALEKO NGUMBIRWA....................... ............9™ DEFENDANT

MAIGE, J

RULING

The plaintiff, has, in paragraph 1 of the Plaint, described herself as an

institute. She does not state anywhere in the plaint whether she is
incorporated and if so, under which law is she incorporated. The name of
the person who verified and signed the plaint is not revealed as well. The
signatory has just indicated that he was signing for the plaintiff.

Therefore, in his written statement of defense, the second defendant has

questioned the maintainability of the suit for among others, want of locus
standi. He has also doubted it for being resjudicata. On their parts, the
fourth and fifth defendants, have, aside from being resjudicata, challenged
the suit for want of jurisdiction.

On 3rd day of March 2020 when the matter came for disposal of preliminary
objections, I directed the parties to argue the same by way of written
submissions. The second defendant presented his submissions in his
person. For the fourth and fifth defendants, the written submissions were
presented for filing by Mr. Victor Ntalula, learned advocate. For the reason
better known to herself, the plaintiff did not file any submission. I take it
that she has weaved her right to be heard.

Since the locus stand of the plaintiff is at issue, it is appropriate to start

with such issue first. In his written submissions, I have noticed, the second
defendant did not address the said issue. He only addressed the second
one. The issue being jurisdictional, this Court is not discharged from its
obvious duty of ascertaining its validity. It is talked hereunder
As I said above, the plaintiff appears to be an institution. Under which law
is it incorporated, the plaint is silent. The person who pleaded and signed
it does not disclose his position in the plaintiff. This Court therefore, cannot
have factual basis from which to decide whether the plaintiff has the
necessary standing to institute these proceedings. As a result, the suit is
struck out with costs for being incompetent.

It is so ordered.

JUDGE

29/04/2020

COURT: Ruling delivered in at thday of April

2020 at 2:30 in Chambers. /T”

JUDGE
29/ 04/2020
ORDER: Parties be notified ^

I.MAIGE
JUDGE
29/ 04/2020