|
Dar kiosks owners’ case referred to High Court
2006-04-17 09:26:09
By Keregero Keregero
The controversial kiosks demolitions case instituted at the Dar es Salaam’s Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court by Dar es Salaam kiosks owners has taken a new turn, with the case file being submitted to the High Court of Tanzania for examination and further action.
According to Principal Resident Magistrate Francis Mutungi who also administratively doubles as In-charge for Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court, the High Court of Tanzania in Dar es Salaam ordered for the delivery of the file last week.
Prior to the delivery of the case file to the superior Court, the Court’s proceedings had progressed to the level of both parties having made their written submissions on a point of law regarding a preliminary objection raised by the kiosks owners against Ilala Municipal Council Director John Lubuva. The submissions would be followed by a ruling on the preliminary objection.
Sometime in mid March this year, the kiosks owners filed an application for contempt of Court against the Council’s Director, John Lubuva whom they claimed disobeyed the Court’s order entered on March 13th this year by Magistrate Mutungi.
The order had restrained the Council and him from demolishing the kiosks pending determination of a suit lodged last month.
But a few days after the Court granted the order and even before the hearing had reached any advanced stage, the defendants allegedly demolished the kiosks, the Court’s order notwithstanding. The act resulted in heavy losses, hence the present application.
In their application, the applicants numbering 147 also pleads with the Court to order the respondents to allocate them new sites to erect new structures to minimise the losses occasioned by the demolition.
They also want the cost of the suit and other remedies to be borne by the respondent.
The council has raised objections to the application saying both the suit and attendant application are legally defective and that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the matter.
The Council also argues that the suit is in contravention of the Urban Authority Act of 1982.
The respondents further argue that the applicants purport to represent other plaintiffs without notifying the court of the number of the applicants.
It is further argued that the affidavit is defective as it contravenes some sections of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act.
|
