Tanzania: High CourtYou are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> Tanzania: High Court >> 2005 >>  TZHC 70 | Noteup | LawCite
Insignia Ltd v Ilala Municipal Council (MISC. CAUSE NO. 63 OF 2003)  TZHC 70 (15 December 2005)
Download original files
Bookmark/share this page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
MISC. CAUSE NO. 63 OF 2003
INSIGNIA LTD APPLICANT
ILALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL RESPONDENT
EX PARTE RULING
This is an application for the orders of Certiorari, Declaration and Prohibition. It has been filed by INSIGNIA Ltd against ILALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. It is supported by the affidavit of one Kishan Dhebar who is the Director of INSIGNIA Ltd Before hearing this application, the Respondent was duly served but none of its representatives did appear on the date fixed for hearing it. The Court decided to proceed exparte by ordering the Applicant to present its written submissions concerning this application. The written submissions were filed by its Advocate Ms Hamida Sheikh. That was on 9/11/2005.
There is one ground upon which this application for the aforesaid orders is based. It is as follows : That the Applicant Company was ordered by the Respondent to remove its advertisement billboard from the junction of Morogoro Road/ Bibi Titi Mohamed street without good reasons and without giving it an opportunity to defend its interests and rights
The Director of the Applicant Company states that the removal of its advertisement billboard from where it is located would cause irreparable harm to the publicity of its products namely Qalaxy and coral paints.
Ms Hamida Sheikh contended on behalf of the Applicant Company that the Respondent's order of removing or relocating the billboard in issue was made contrary to the principles of natural justice, fairness and equity.
The Applicant is seeking for an order of certiorari to move into this Court, the decision of the Director of the Respondent council concerning the relocating of its billboard so that it may be reviewed and quashed. The order of declaration is being sought by the Applicant so that this Court may declare the said decision as illegal, unfair, inequitable and against the rules of natural justice. The order of prohibition is being sought so that this Court may prohibit the Respondent or its agents from removing the billboard from where it is located.
This application was filed under a certificate of urgency presented for filing on 11th July, 2003 which is a period of over two years ago. So far, it is not known whether the billboard in issue is still located at the junction of Morogoro Road/ Bibi Titi Street or it has already been relocated to another place as ordered by the Respondent.
Whatever the case may be, the question to be considered by this Court is whether or not the Respondent's order requiring the Applicant to relocate its billboard is illegal unfair or inequitable. The reasons which were given by the Respondent for requiring the Applicant to relocate its advertisement billboard are contained in a letter with reference No IMC/ME/B.2/ 2 Vol. V/34 dated 22/3/2003. This letter is from the Director of the Respondent Council nd is addressed to the Applicant Company informing it that th have been complaints from the Roads Agency and from the Institute of Technology that its advertisement billboard at the junction of Morogoro Road/ Bibi Titi Street is obstructing motorists and is degrading the said Institute's fence.
For me, I think that the Respondent had good cause or reasons for ordering the Applicant to remove its advertisement billboard from where it is located namely at Morogoro Road / Bibi Titi Street . A billboard which is obstructive to motorists is likely to cause accidents. Also, a billboard which interferes with other peoples comfortable use of their environment denies them happiness. The Applicant's billboard in issue is said to be of that nature. For this reason I cannot hold that the Respondent acted unreasonably for ordering the Applicant to relocate it.
In view of the fact that the Respondent asked the Applicant to select another position for relocating it, I cannot hold that the Respondent acted unjustly or inequitably.
For these reasons, I dismiss this application but order that each party should bear its own costs.
Delivered in open Court this 15th day of December, 2005.