Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiff, John Raphael Bocco, sued Princess Leisure (T) Ltd for unauthorized use of his images in marketing and commercial activities. The defendant raised preliminary objections challenging the plaint's disclosure of cause of action under Order VII rule 1 (a) and 11 (e) of the Civil Procedure Code, jurisdiction under Section 18 (a) of the Code, and the plaintiff's locus standi regarding image rights versus copyright. The court ruled that the High Court registry in Mwanza lacks jurisdiction as the defendant's principal business is in Dar es Salaam, and the cause of action's location remained uncertain based on the plaint's averments.
Issues
- The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Mwanza court, arguing the suit should be in Dar es Salaam where the defendant resides and operates. The plaintiff claimed jurisdiction under Section 18 (c) as the cause of action arose in Mwanza, referencing the location of a football match advertisement. The court held that the plaint's averments establish the forum as Dar es Salaam High Court.
- The defendant challenged the plaint for not disclosing a cause of action as required by Order VII rule 1 (a) and 11 (e) of the Civil Procedure Code, citing cases like John M. Byombalirwa v. Agency Maritime Internationale (Tanzania) Limited. The plaintiff argued the cause of action was sufficiently disclosed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint.
- The defendant argued the plaintiff lacked locus standi as they are not the copyright owner under section 11 (b) of the Copyright Act. The plaintiff contended their claim was based on image rights/proprietary rights, not copyright, and cited cases like Classic Artworks Ltd v. Mr. Vicent Lukenge to support this distinction.
Holdings
The court upheld the defendant's second preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, determining that the High Court of Tanzania has unlimited geographical jurisdiction but this suit must be heard in Dar es Salaam where the defendant resides and conducts business. The court concluded it lacks jurisdiction to hear the case in Mwanza, leading to the suit being struck out with costs to the defendant.
Remedies
- The court struck out the plaintiff's suit for lack of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
- The court awarded costs to the defendant as the plaintiff's case was struck out due to jurisdictional issues.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle of Forum Non Conveniens to determine jurisdiction, concluding that the suit should have been filed in Dar es Salaam where the defendant resides and conducts business, rather than Mwanza. The ruling emphasized that averments in the plaint must establish the forum, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient connection to Mwanza for jurisdiction under Section 18 (a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Code.
Precedent Name
- John M. Byombalirwa v. Agency Maritime Internationale (Tanzania) Limited
- Auto Garage v. Motokov
- Meneja Mkuu, Shirika la Umeme Zanzibar v. Juma Simai Mkumbini and Others
- CR. F. Lwanyatika Masha v. the Attorney General
- J.B. Shirima and Others Express Bus Service v. Humphrey Meena t/a Comfort Bus Service
- Classic Artworks Ltd v. Mr. Vicent Lukenge and Children of Grace
Cited Statute
- Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act
- Civil Procedure Code
Judge Name
W.P. Dyansobera
Passage Text
- As the Court of Appeal in Meneja Mkuu, Shirika la Umeme Zanzibar v. Juma Simai Mkumbini and Others (supra) observed, 'the averments made in a plaint are material' and 'the jurisdiction of a court should normally be determined on the basis of the case put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint.'
- This court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit in view of the clear provisions of Section 18 (a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E.2019] and the available pleadings. The secondary point of preliminary objection is upheld. Accordingly, the suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.
- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given or the defendants who do not reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or part, arises.