properly filed before this Court to sustain this application.
In reply Mr. Shayo reiterated his reasons for adjournment of the application. He stressed that the
applicant wishes to file a reply to the counter affidavit and he can do so only if the hearing of the
application is adjourned. As to the costs incurred by three principal officers of' the defendants in
their travel from Dar es Salaam to the Court to attend the hearing of this application Mr. Shayo
submitted that that was not necessary because the said office were not summoned to perform any
function connected with the hearing and disposal of the application.
Mr. Shayo reiterated his prayer for a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo at the plant.
He urged that that the temporary injunction is necessary to restrain the respondent from
commissioning their plant, which act if done will defeat the purpose both of this application and
the main suit.
With regard to the respondents' prayer that the applicant should deposit with the court an amount
equal to the amount the respondents will lose daily as expenditure at the plant in case the hearing
of the application was adjourned. Mr. Shayo vehemently objected to that prayer that if the same
were granted, it would punish the plaintiffs in the main suit who are poor peasants only.
Moreover, Mr. Shayo argued, an order for a deposit to be made into the court by the applicant
will be improper and unjust at this stage where the applicant is entitled to apply for leave to file a
reply to the counter affidavit. The applicant on behalf of the rest of the plaintiffs in the main suit
is seeking for leave of this court to file a reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
On the question that the applicant is not entitled to two sets of counter affidavits, and in particular
the documents annexed thereto, Mr. Shayo urged that, since the applicant is represented by two
advocates, each of whom hails from a different firm of Advocates, then each of those advocates is
entitled to be served with a separate copy of the counter affidavit. Moreover the applicant
represents 627 plaintiffs who are also applicants in this application; this situation alone entitles
the applicant to be served with extra copies of the counter affidavit.
I have carefully considered the submissions of Counsel for both parties on the sole question that
this Court is called upon to resolve at this stage, that is, whether or not the applicant's application
for adjournment of the hearing of the application should be granted.
Before advertising to and resolving this question, I feel I have a legal duty to say a few words on
the procedure that were adopted by the Acting District Registrar in calling the record on
24/6/1992 in the absence of the parties, and with any application from anyone of them and fixing
another hearing date on 2/7/1992 instead of 24/7/1992 which had been initially fixed. Although
an order was made that the parties be notified, yet the record shows that no notice we ever issued
and served in that direction. In humble view the Court had intended to change the date of hearing
suo mot from 24/7/1992 to 2/7/-1992 it should have first issued note to the parties to appear
before it in order to fix the application for hearing on 2/7/1992.
Then there is the error that transpired on 2/7/1992 when the application had been fixed for
hearing obviously for hearing before a judge. Instead the application went for hearing before the
Acting District Registrar. The applicant was absent and there was no proof he was served. On the
other hand the respondents appeared by an advocate Mr. Maro from TLC. It is not clear from the
record as earlier pointed out how TLC got the information that the hearing date had been changed
from 24/7/1992 to 2/7/1992. All the same the acting District Registrar had an application from
Mr. Maro in which he applied for leave and time to file a counter affidavit. The Acting District
Registrar heard the application and finally granted it. He made an order the counter affidavit be