Yono Auction loses court action in 200m/- suit

By FAUSTINE KAPAMA

THE Kinondoni District Court has dismissed with costs grounds of objections raised by Yono Auction Mart Co. Limited against a suit lodged by Dabs Limited, Danish Company dealing with agricultural importation and distribution of equipment, demanding about 200m/- in compensation.

Resident Magistrate Anifa Mwingira ruled that the grounds presented by Yono Auction Mart, the defendant, to object to the hearing of the suit lacked merits. The defendant had asked the court to dismiss the suit on grounds that the Danish Company, as plaintiff, had no cause of action against them. It was stated that the court had no jurisdiction to determine tax matters and the suit was defective for non-joinder of the disclosed principal.
The defendant further states that the plaint was lodged in contravention of some provisions under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). In her ruling, however, the magistrate observed that there were facts which had to be ascertained. He noted that the plaintiff had accused the defendant of trespassing into his properties, thus, the claims of having no cause of action could not stand.
On court’s jurisdiction, the magistrate agreed with submissions by the plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr Wilson Mafie, that the case related to trespass and not tax matters as alleged by the defendant, who was expected to have documents showing that the plaintiff has tax liability with Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA).
As regards to the non-joinder of the disclosed principal, the magistrate said that having gone through the court records, she found nothing suggesting that the defendant was acting as an agent of TRA in course of their dealing with the plaintiff. On the plaintiff’s suit contravening the provisions under the CPC for failure to disclose the amount claimed in order to vest the court with powers to determine the matter and the plaint being signed by the principal officer, the magistrate also found such grounds of lacking merits.
In the suit, Dabs Limited, the plaintiff, is seeking for orders requiring Yono Auction Mart, the defendant, to return all the products or equipments taken from its premises or in the alternative to pay 150m/- being sale price of the products in question.
The plaintiff company further requests the court to order the defendant to pay them 20m/- , being special damages suffered and another 30m/-being general damages and anguish caused. On September 20, 2017, it is alleged, the defendant company trespassed into the company’s premises located at Wazo Hill Tegeta in Kinondoni district.
It is alleged that the defendant unlawfully, unreasonably and without any rights invaded the company’s premises and forcefully took away all equipments, which were for sale and were imported from Denmark in the name of the company and was cleared according to the relevant customs laws. Such equipments include Hard Boom Sprayers, Subsoil Maschio, ADF 4 disc discplaug Maschio, Sauro 400 GCP 3ways, Boom Sprayer Maschio, ZenoFertiliser Maschio Gasprado, tractors Massey Ferguson, Vejhovle Fransgaard GT, Fronloader, Kongskilde Cultivator and Seed Machine Sugar Beet Seeder.
It is stated that officers of the company notified the defendant on the trespass and the effect thereof, but the defendant to the reasons best known to him allegedly ignore the plaintiff and proceeded to take off all the said equipments. Due to the defendant’s acts, the plaintiff’s business has been badly affected due to the fact that customers were totally discouraged.
This resulted in the company to close down its business because all their products are within the defendant’s hand and there is no business circulation. In its written statement of defence, however, the defendant company disputes the contents of the plaint of the suit, to the effect that the equipments in dispute were collected by the order of warrant of distress issued by the Tanzania Revenue Authority to the defendant.
The defendant avers that the plaintiff defaulted to pay tax to the TRA who later issued warrant of distress of attaching the plaintiff’s properties as listed in the bailiff and notice of distress. Otherwise, the plaintiff has been put to task to prove its claims against the defendant.