The application was strongly objected to by Mr. Fungamtama, learned counsel for the respondent, on the ground that the respondent
was not served with the notice of motion as required by Rule 52 (1) of the Court Rules, 1979. In that respect Mr. Fungamtama called
upon the Court to strike out the application without an order as to costs.
In reply Mr. Nyange, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that he believed
in good faith that the respondent was served with the notice of motion and the accompanying affidavit. But he conceded that he had
no evidence of service.
There is no doubt that the law requires that all necessary parties must be served
with the notice of motion and copies of all affidavits. Rule 52 (1) of the Court Rules provides as follows:-
g52 (1) The notice of motion and copies of all affidavits shall be served on all necessary parties not less than two clear days before
the hearing.h
In the instant case there is no proof that the respondent, who is a necessary party, was served with the notice of motion with its
accompanying affidavit. This was in contravention of the above Rule.
In view of this, under Rule 52 (1) of the Court Rules, 1979, I do hereby dismiss the application. I make no order as to costs.
DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 13th day of December,2004.
