Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiff, Rasia Harubu Salum (administratrix of the late Harubu Salum Masamala's estate), claimed ownership of a 37-acre farm in Magambani-Mitimingi Kaole, Bagamoyo District, Pwani Region, alleging the defendants are trespassers. The 1st to 6th defendants filed a preliminary objection on 9 June 2023, arguing the amended plaint was filed out of time (28 April 2023 vs. the 27 April 2023 court-ordered deadline) without seeking an extension. The court determined that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the procedural deadline, despite the amendment's relevance to the case, rendered the plaint invalid. The 7th defendant was ex-parte, and the ruling was issued on 15 August 2023.
Issues
The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff's amended plaint, filed on 28 April 2023, was validly submitted in compliance with the court's order dated 24 April 2023, which required the amendment to be filed by 27 April 2023. The court had to determine if the one-day delay in filing, without seeking an extension, justified striking out the case, and whether the principle of overriding objective could be invoked to condone the procedural breach.
Holdings
The court sustained the preliminary objection and struck out the case with costs because the amended plaint was filed out of time on 28/4/2023 instead of 27/4/2023 as ordered, without seeking leave for an extension. The judge emphasized that non-compliance with court orders cannot be excused under the principle of overriding objective, as it undermines procedural rules.
Remedies
The court sustains the preliminary objection and strikes out the case, with costs awarded to the defendants.
Legal Principles
The court applied Order VI Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates that amendments must be filed within a specified time or within 14 days if no time is set. The ruling emphasized strict compliance with court orders, rejecting the plaintiff's late filing of the amended plaint. The principle of 'overriding objective' was considered but not invoked, as the court held that procedural non-compliance could not be excused for a one-day delay without a valid reason.
Precedent Name
- Leila Suleiman Yange vs. Rahma Mohamed Mabrouck
- Mondorosi Village Council and 2 others vs. Tanzania Breweries Limited and 4 others
- Michael B. Masinde vs. D.S. Izina Alias Dhahiri Said Izina & 3 others
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Code
Judge Name
A. Msaferi
Passage Text
- In this matter at hand, the Court has not extended the time for filing the amended plaint as the plaintiff has not sought leave to do so, instead, the plaintiff went on to file the same out of time. It is for the foregoing reasons that I sustain the preliminary objection and proceed to struck out the case, with costs.
- To my understanding of the above Rule, 14 days will be counted if there is no limitation of time. But in the present matter, the Court's order set the time limit, i.e. the amendment to be filed within two days (2) i.e. by 27/4/2023, the plaint was filed on 28/4/2023 and with no Court's leave for extension of time.
- the issue for my determination is whether the preliminary objection is tenable. First, it is my finding that this preliminary objection is on point of law. It is the laid down rule that the Court's orders has to be complied with, and thatis why the procedures are firmly set and have to be obediently adhered to. The orders of the Court are mandatorily to be followed.