Automated Summary
Key Facts
Three liquor import companies (Zanzibar Maritime and Mercantile International Co. Ltd, One Stop Company Limited, Scotch Store) filed a miscellaneous civil application seeking contempt of court orders against six respondents including the Attorney General of Zanzibar, Liquor Advisory Board, and several individuals. The court found the application incompetent for failing to comply with Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010, as mandatory notice to the Chief Secretary and Attorney General was not given before instituting the suit against government officials. The application was struck out with costs.
Issues
- The court needed to determine whether the contempt application was competent or incompetent due to failure to comply with Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No 3 of 2010, which requires two months' notice to the Chief Secretary and Attorney General of Zanzibar before instituting a suit against the government or public officer.
- The court had to determine whether the affidavit in support of the application was defective and, if so, what remedy should be applied. Issues raised included improper verification, failure to disclose source of information and grounds of belief, and whether defects could be amended or required striking out the application.
- The court needed to determine whether the failure to attach the ruling dated 19th February 2024 to the application was fatal and should result in striking out the application.
Holdings
The court determined that the application for contempt of court orders is incompetent and is struck out with costs because the Applicants failed to give the mandatory notice to the Chief Secretary and Attorney General of Zanzibar as required by Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010. The court found that notice was mandatory for suits and applications against the government or public officers, and since the Applicants did not deliver notice to the office of the Chief Secretary and Attorney General, the application is incompetent and disposed accordingly without resolving other preliminary objections raised by the Respondents.
Remedies
The court struck out the contempt application with costs because the Applicants failed to give the mandatory two months' notice to the Chief Secretary and Attorney General as required by Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010. The court determined that the required notice was not given and the Applicants did not object to this fact, finding the application incompetent for non-compliance with the statutory requirement.
Legal Principles
Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010 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 court held that this provision applies to both suits and applications for contempt, and failure to provide the mandatory notice renders the application incompetent and subject to being struck out with costs.
Precedent Name
- Phantom Modern Transport Limited
- Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd
- Ali Vuai Ali v/s Suwed Mzee Suwed
- Uganda versus Commissioner of Prisons exparte Matovu
- Sanyou Service Station Ltd versus BP Tanzania Ltd
- Salima Vuai Fumu v. Registrar of Cooperative Society and 3 Others
Cited Statute
- Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010
- Oath Decree Cap. 7
- Civil Procedure Decree Cap. 8 Order XXII Rule 3
Judge Name
Judge Ibrahim M. Ibrahim presiding over the case
Passage Text
- The remaining issues on whether the affidavit is defective or not and if it is defective what will be the remedy available and the issue whether the failure to attach ruling is fatal or not need not be resolved in this application. The application is disposed basing on the issue of failure to give the mandatory notice to sue the government. As a result, the application is incompetent and is struck out with costs. It so ordered.
- This is an application originating from an applied law namely common law and by virtue of section 19 of the Government Proceedings Act No. 3 of 2010 the common law can be relied on. Also, section 3 (1) of the Act No. 3 of 2010 has subjected the government to all those liabilities in tort and in other respects like a private person of full age and capacity therefore an application of this nature does squarely fall within the ambit of a suit under Act No. 3 of 2010. 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.
- 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 wording of this application seemed to combined both two purposes in the same application. But, let us assume the application is for civil contempt.