This case has had a chequered history. It has been in the
court corridors since 1995. The Appellant, who was a police officer, was
dismissed from employment for misconduct, filed a suit in the High Court of
Tanzania at Mwanza, against four Respondents. He claimed damages for malicious
prosecution against the 3rd defendant and general damages against
the 2nd defendant. He also claimed sums of money being costs
incurred during follow-up of the matter to the 2nd defendant,
lawyer’s fees in Criminal Case No. 296 of 1992, and salary arrears from the 1st
and 2nd defendants.
In response thereto, the 1st, 2nd and 4th
defendants filed a written statement of defence and raised a preliminary
objection to the suit on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and
prayed for the same to be dismissed. The trial court by the late Mrema, J.,
sustained the objections and held that the suit suffered from multifariousness
and or misjoinder of suit and misjoinder of parties. The Court held that the
suit against the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants
which was in relation to the breach of contract of employment was filed in the
wrong forum and it was thus struck out.
As for the 3rd defendant, the High Court found that
there was a misjoinder of parties on a cause of action. It was advised that, if
the plaintiff had sufficient grounds against the 3rd defendant, he
was at liberty to file a separate suit on a tort of malicious prosecution.
Following that decision, the Appellant filed Civil Case No. 11
of 2003 against the 2nd and 4th Respondents (now the 1st
and 2nd Respondents) before the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza
which is the subject of this appeal. He claimed against the Respondents a total
of Tshs. 18,381,000/= being general damages, salary arrears, arrears of meal
allowances, travelling costs, arrears of detective allowance and costs of the
suit. This suit was dismissed on 4/3/3014 by the court for the reason that the
court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, because the Appellant had not
exhausted available remedies as per section 9 (2) of the Police Force and
Prisons Service Commission Act No. 8 of 1990 and the Regulations thereto.
Having been aggrieved by that decision, undaunted, the Appellant
filed an appeal before this Court: Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2015. This Court
declared the High Court judgment a nullity for the reason that the parties were
not heard on the issue of jurisdiction upon which the Court based its dismissal
of the suit. The Court remitted the record to the trial Court for the same
Judge to re-summon the parties and hear them on the issue which led to the
dismissal of the suit and proceed to compose a fresh judgment. The trial court
complied with this Court’s order and in the end, it struck out the suit for the
reason that the court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain it. Upon being
aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the Appellant has come before this
Court on appeal.