Godfrey Lwehumbiza Mugini vs Paskazia Lubazibwa & 4 Others (Land Case No. 3 of 2023) [2023] TZHC 21221 (22 September 2023)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court ruled that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants' Written Statements of Defence were incompetent due to failure to sign and verify them themselves, as required by Order VI Rule 14. The defendants' counsel lacked explicit authority to act on their behalf, leading to the objection being sustained.
• The court considered if the 1st and 3rd defendants' Written Statements of Defence were filed beyond the 21-day limit under Order VIII Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. It was determined that this issue required factual evidence about service, making it unsuitable as a preliminary objection.

Holdings

• The court sustained the preliminary objection that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants' written statements of defence were incompetent for failure to be signed and verified by the defendants themselves, as required by Order VI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court granted these defendants 14 days to file compliant statements.
• The court overruled the preliminary objections regarding the 1st and 3rd defendants' late filing of written statements of defence, finding they hinged on factual proof of service rather than being pure legal points. The court emphasized that service-related disputes require evidence and cannot be resolved as preliminary objections under the Mukisa Biscuits principle.

Remedies

• The court ordered that each party shall bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings, as stated in paragraph 3.35 of the ruling. This applies to all parties involved in the case.
• The court granted the 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants an extension of 14 days (from 22nd September 2023) to file properly signed and verified Written Statements of Defence in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code. This remedy was provided to address the deficiencies in their initial submissions regarding signatures and verification requirements.

Legal Principles

• The court referenced the 2018 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code (Section 3A) which mandates courts to prioritize the just, expeditious, and proportionate resolution of disputes. This principle was used to grant defendants an extension to file compliant pleadings.
• The court applied the principle that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law without requiring factual ascertainment, as established in the case of Mukisa Biscuits v. West End Distributors Ltd. This principle was used to determine the validity of certain objections raised in the case.
• The court emphasized the procedural requirement under Order VI Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code that pleadings must be signed and verified by the parties themselves, not by their legal representatives. This was cited to invalidate unsigned and unverified written statements of defence.

Precedent Name

• F.A. SAPA V. SINGORA
• MUKISA BISCUITS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD V. WEST END DISTRIBUTORS LTD

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• I have considered the submissions by the learned Counsel and with respect I am not convinced that the said points are pure points of law. This is so because the same hinge on the proof of service which requires evidence. ... On that basis, this court is of the view that the 1st point of objection in the notice filed on 9th June 2023 and the 3rd point raised in the notice filed on 9th May 2023 are not pure points of law and as such they are overruled.
• From the foregoing, I agree with Mr. Mathis Rweyemamu that the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants' Written Statement of Defence are incompetent for failure to be endorsed by signatures of the respective defendants and also for lack of proper verification. This point of objection is thus sustained.