Automated Summary
Key Facts
The High Court of Zanzibar dismissed a contempt application by three liquor-importing companies against four individuals (Respondents 3, 4, 5, and 7) for allegedly disobeying court orders dated 19 February 2024. The court ruled the application incompetent due to failure to provide mandatory 2-month notice under Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010 before suing public officers. The application sought to punish Respondents for withholding the Applicants' goods at the port and undermining court authority, but was struck out with costs.
Issues
- The third issue was whether the application was defective for not attaching a copy of the court ruling dated February 19, 2024. The Respondents contended that the absence of this ruling rendered the application incomplete and unattainable. However, the court did not resolve this issue as the application was already struck out on the grounds of non-compliance with the Government Proceedings Act.
- The second issue concerned the verification of the affidavit supporting the application. The Respondents argued that the affidavit was incurably defective under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Decree (CPD) Cap. 8 of Zanzibar for not specifying the source of information and the grounds for the deponent's beliefs. The court considered whether this defect could be remedied or if it necessitated striking out the application.
- The court was required to determine if the Applicants' application was competent under Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010. This provision mandates that no suit shall be instituted against the government or a public officer unless two months' notice has been given to the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General of Zanzibar. The Applicants failed to provide this notice, and the court found that the requirement was mandatory, rendering the application incompetent.
Holdings
The court found that the application is incompetent for failing to comply with Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010, which requires mandatory notice to the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General before suing the government or a public officer. The judge determined that this requirement was not met, leading to the application being struck out with costs. Other issues, such as the defective affidavit and failure to attach the ruling, were not resolved as the application was already dismissed on this basis.
Remedies
The court found the application incompetent for failing to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under Section 6 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010. Consequently, the application was struck out with costs. No further remedies were addressed as the court determined the application could not proceed.
Legal Principles
- The court ordered the application to be struck out 'with costs,' indicating the Applicants would bear the financial burden of the legal proceedings due to their procedural non-compliance.
- The application was struck out for non-compliance with Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010, which mandates notice to the Chief Secretary and Attorney General before suing the government or public officers. The court held this requirement was not met, rendering the application incompetent.
- The affidavit was deemed defective under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Decree for failing to disclose the source of information and grounds of belief. The court concluded this defect was fatal and could not be amended, though this principle lacks a direct enum match.
Precedent Name
- Salima Vuai Fumu v. Registrar of Cooperative Society and 3 Others
- Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd
- Ali Vuai Ali v/s Suwed Mzee Suwed
- Sanyou Service Station Ltd versus BP Tanzania Ltd
Cited Statute
- Interpretation Laws and General Provisions Act No. 7 of 1984
- Oath Decree Cap. 7 of the laws of Zanzibar
- Civil Procedure Decree Cap. 8 of Zanzibar
- Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010
Judge Name
Ibrahim M. Ibrahim
Passage Text
- This is an application to enforce compliance with the court orders. It is likely an application for civil contempt. Nevertheless, it combined some elements of an application for criminal contempt. The distinction between the criminal contempt and the civil contempt is obtained from the purpose of the proceeding. If the purpose is to coerce compliance with a court order or undertaking the contempt is classified as civil. If the purpose is to punish non-compliance the contempt is classified as criminal.
- The defective verification in this application has gone to the root of the affidavit. Therefore, illegality cannot be amended as held in the case of Phantom Modern Transport (1985) Limited versus D.T. bie which cited with approval the case of Uganda versus Commissioner of Prisons exparte Matovu [1966] EA 514. The affidavit in the instant case is totally defective; the oath and the verification are not true. We pray that is should be struck out with costs.
- The issue whether the application is competent or incompetent for not complying with Section 6 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act No 3 of 2010 is obviously simple. There is no dispute that the required notice was not given. The Applicants have not objected at all to that fact. Their only objection was that it was not mandatory for them to give that notice. I have gone through Annexures of the application; they indirectly proved that the Applicants failed to delivered notice to the office of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General. Hence, for the reasons I have explained hereinabove I found that it was mandatory and consequently the application is incompetent for not complying with section 6 (2) of the Act No. 3 of 2010.