In the High Court of Tanzania

(Commercial Division)
At Dar es Salaam

Commercial Case No. ______ of 2013

Z.H Poppe Limited 1st Plaintiff

Delina General Enterprises Limited 2nd Plaintiff
Simba Logistics Limited 3rd Plaintiff
Usangu Logistics Limited 4th Plaintiff
Overland Logistics Limited 5th Plaintiff
Simera Transport Limited 6th Plaintiff
Bravo Logistics Limited 7th Plaintiff
NAM Enterprises Limited 8th Plaintiff

Versus

Honourable Minister
Ministry of Works 1st Defendant

Honourable the Attorney General 2nd Defendant

Originating Summons
(Made under Rule (10)(1) and 10(2)(a) and (b), Rule 11 of the High Court (Commercial Division)
Procedure Rules, 2012, Section 82(2)(f) and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, [Cap 33 of R.E 2002])

The Plaintiffs above named, jointly and severally, claim against the Defendants, jointly and
severally, and state as follows:

1. The Plaintiffs are the companies limited by shares incorporated and duly existing under the
laws of Tanzania with a purpose of carrying on the business of transportation. The Plaintiffs’
address for service for the purpose of this suit is in the care of:

FK Law Chambers, Advocates

23, Barrack Obama Drive
Sea View, Upanga
PO Box 20787
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

1|Page
2. The 1st Defendant is a Minister heading the Ministry of Works of the United Republic of
Tanzania. The 1st Defendant’s address for service for the purposes of this suit is in the care
of:

Honourable Minister
Ministry of Works
Samora Avenue, Holland House
P O Box 9423
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

3. The 2nd Defendant is the Legal Advisor to the Government of the United Republic of
Tanzania (the “Government”), who is necessarily bound to be joined in any proceeding
against the Government. The 2nd Defendant’s address for service for purposes of this suit is
in the care of:

The Attorney General’s Chambers

Kivukoni Front
PO Box 9050
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

4. In 2001, the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, through Government Notice
No. 30 of 9th February 2001, published regulations to apply to maximum weight of vehicles
when used on public roads (the “Regulations”). The Regulations passed were meant to apply
to all vehicles of 3,500 kg permissible weight or above. The Regulations prohibited any
vehicle overloading when used on public road in contravention of permissible axle(s) weight
and gross vehicle mass laid down for that vehicle.

5. Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations further provided that, an axle shall only be deemed
overloaded if the load exceeds the legal limit by subtraction a margin of five percent 5%
tolerance of the scale reading, and after rounding off down to the nearest 100 Kilograms.
Following publication of Regulations, all vehicles specified under the Regulations are
required to measure the load carried while using a public road at the weighbridges before
reaching the point of destinations.

2|Page
6. In the course of effecting the Regulations, it was discovered by the Plaintiffs and other
stakeholders in the transportation industry that there was inconsistencies of weighbridge
scales when reading from one weighbridge station to another which made the Plaintiffs and
other transporters through Tanzania Truck Owners Association (“TATOA”), an association
representing all truck owners in Tanzania, to lodge a complaint with 1st Defendant to check
and verify the conformity of the weighbridges. The 1 st Defendant, through its predecessor
Ministry, organized a joint trip between its agent, Tanzania National Roads Agency
(“TANROADS”), TATOA and the Police Force to verify the truth. In the course of the trip,
it was discovered that the readings at various weighbridges for the same truck were very
different and in some cases the margin was quite wide.

7. Following the inconsistency discovered, on 2nd April 2001, the 1st Defendant’s agent,
TANROADS, issued an Internal Memorandum and observed that, the vehicle weights
measured in one weighbridge measures differently to the other weighbridge. It was noted
that the difference in readings found in different weighbridge scales were due to the
difference in the pressure, positioning of axles on the weighbridge scales, sensitivity of
scale, competence of weighbridge operators, differences in levels of approaches to the
weighbridge stations, and source of manufacture of the weighbridge.

Copy of the Internal Memorandum issued by TANROADS on 2 nd April 2001 is

herewith attached marked annexure “TATOA-1”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of
the Honourable Court to make reference to it as forming part of this Originating
Summons.

8. Following observations made by TANROADS and TATOA, the 1 st Defendant proposed

countermeasures to overcome the inconsistencies in the weighbridges by fixing calibration
to the weighbridges whereby both fixed weighbridges and mobile weighbridges had to be
calibrated from time to time, procurement of more computerized fixed weighbridges,
training of weighbridge operators, commencement of operations of weighbridges at the port,
and frequent maintenance of weighbridge stations approaches to ensure level of both
approaches.

9. On 25th January 2006, the Plaintiffs, through TATOA, wrote a letter to the 1 st Defendant
informing them of how discrepancies in the reading at the weighbridges affect transport
sector. Among others, the Plaintiffs suggested the subtraction of 5% tolerance be waived
3|Page
 where the load exceeded the legal limit and a surcharge be levied for any load in excess of
the 5% tolerance margin.

Copy of the letter written by TATOA dated 25 th January 2006 to the 1st Defendant is
herewith attached marked annexure “TATOA-2”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of
the Honourable Court to make reference to it as forming part of this Originating
Summons.

10. Following Plaintiff’s proposals, on 30th January 2006, the 1st Defendant informed the
Plaintiffs that he could arrange the meeting to sort out technicalities which faced the
Plaintiff’s and other stakeholders in the transport sector when passing through the
weighbridges. The 1st Defendant also indicated and agreed that the transport sector would be
flexibly managed technically and commercially in order to benefit from being a gateway to
neighboring countries.

Copy of the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 30th January 2006 is herewith attached
marked annexure “TATOA-3”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of the Honourable
Court to make reference to it as forming part of this Originating Summons.

11. Following evaluation of the issues raised by Plaintiffs in relations to the axle load control
operations, on 19th July 2006, the 1st Defendant’s predecessor, the Minister of Infrastructure
Development, through his letter dated 19th July 2006 (“Ministerial Direction”), gave the
directions in regard to weighbridge tolerance rate of 5% of the allowed weight to all vehicles
exceeding the legal limit after addition of five percent (5%), which, in essence, repeated and
confirmed the provisions of regulation 7(2) of the Regulations. The 1 st Defendant further
instructed TANROADS to issue clarifications in respect of applicability of the said
Regulations governing maximum of weight of vehicles in respect of 5% tolerance if the load
exceeded the legal limit allowable by the law, so as to ensure uniformity during
measurement at the weighbridges countrywide.

Copy of the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 19th July 2006 is herewith attached marked
annexure “TATOA-4”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of the Honourable Court to
make reference to it as forming part of this Originating Summons.

4|Page
12. Following Ministerial Direction, on 27th July 2006, TANROADS wrote a letter to all
Regional Managers of TANROADS, informing them of the Ministerial Direction and
requested them to ensure compliance and uniform of the application of the Regulations
governing the maximum weighty of vehicles.

Copy of the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 27th July 2006 is herewith attached marked
annexure “TATOA-5”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of the Honourable Court to
make reference to it as forming part of this Originating Summons.

13. By its letter dated 1st October 2013, the 1st Defendant, referring to the Ministerial Direction
made by his predecessor, Minister for Infrastructure Development, wrote to the Plaintiffs
and erroneous held that the permit in regard to weighbridge tolerance rate of five percent 5%
of the allowed weight had been immediately removed, and that the removal of the 5%
tolerance margin has effectively commenced from 1st October 2013. The 1st Defendant
instructed that all vehicles which overload beyond allowable weight limit be penalized in
accordance to the laws thereby effectively abolishing the 5% tolerance margin granted under
the provisions of regulation 7(2) of the Regulations.

Copy of the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 1st October 2013 is herewith attached
marked annexure “TATOA-6”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of the Honourable
Court to make reference to it as forming part of this Originating Summons.

14. Following the issuance of the 1st Defendant’s letter, all transporters within Tanzania called a
nationwide stoppage of transport services which is ongoing, while trying to engage in
negotiations with the 1st Defendant and other relevant authorities. The efforts by the
Plaintiffs and other transporters members of TATOA proved futile.

15. On 9th October 2013, the Plaintiffs through TATOA, instructed FK Law Chambers to issue a
ninety days’ statutory notice to the Defendants demonstrating the Plaintiffs’ and other
TATOA members’ the intention to institute a suit against the Defendants in the High Court
of Tanzania, and to seek immediate intervention of the this Honourable Court.

Copy of the Statutory Notice by FK Law Chambers issued to the Defendants on

behalf of Plaintiff dated 09th October 2013 is herewith attached marked annexure

5|Page
 “TATOA-7”. The Plaintiffs shall seek leave of the Honourable Court to make
reference to it as forming part of this Originating Summons.

16. Following the failure to get an amicable settlement of the dispute ensuing between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants, the Plaintiffs now seeks the jurisdiction of the Honourable
Court found on the provisions of the laws above cited and seeks an immediate intervention
of this Honourable Court to interpret and construct the provisions of regulation 7(2) vis-à-
vis the Ministerial Direction dated 19th July 2006, and the impugned decision of the 1st
Defendant to revoke the Ministerial Direction given pursuant to the provisions of regulation
7(2) of the Regulations and in particular:

(i) To interpret and construe the provisions of regulation 7(2) of the Regulations and
provide its true and correct objective, spirit, meaning, and effect;

(ii) To provide an interpretation and construction of the provisions of Regulation 7 (2) of

the Regulations vis-a- vis the 1st Defendant’s letter dated 1st October 2013;

(iii) To find out and determine on whether the 1st Defendant’s decision dated 1st October
2013 is based on the correct interpretation and application of the provisions of
regulation 7(2) of Road Traffic Act (Maximum Weight of Vehicle) Regulations,
2001; and

(iv) To find out and determine whether the 1st Defendant’s decision dated 1st October
2013 was reasonably made based on the Ministerial statutory powers conferred
under the law.

Wherefore the Plaintiffs pray for judgment, decree and orders against the Defendants, jointly and
severally, as follows:

(a) For declaration that the 1st Defendant wrongly interpreted, and erroneously applied
the provisions of regulation 7(2) of the Road Traffic Act (Maximum Weight of
Vehicle) Regulations, 2001 contained in GN No. 30 of 2001 (the “Regulations”);

6|Page
 (b) For declaration that the 1st Defendant’s decision dated 1st October 2013 violates the
provisions of the laws and rules of natural justice;

(c) For declaration that the 1st Defendant acted unreasonably and vindictively in arriving
at his decision purportedly removing the permit granted by his predecessor on 19 th
July 2006, and misapplying the true and correct interpretation contained in the
Ministerial Direction;

(d) The Honourable Court be pleased set aside the direction given by the 1st Defendant
on 1st October 2013 and make any other order/orders that it may deem fit and just to
grant under the circumstances of the case; and,

(e) That costs be granted.

Dated at Dar es Salaam this 10th day of October 2013.

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

st
Principal Officer of the 1 Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 2nd Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

Principal Officer of the 3rd Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 4th Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

Principal Officer of the 5th Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 6th Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

th
Principal Officer of the 7 Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 8th Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

7|Page
 ..........................................................
Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Verification

We, Zacharia Hans Poppe, Davis Elisa Mosha, Ally Dewji, Ibrahim Ismail, Faisal Edha,
Rahim Dossa, Angelina Ngalula and Elias Lukumay, the Principal Officers of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 6th, 7th and 8th of the Plaintiffs’ Companies respectively duly authorised and well versed with the
facts of this case, do hereby state that all what is stated under paragraphs 1 to 16 hereinabove, all
inclusive, is true to the best of our knowledge.

Verified and dated at Dar es Salaam this 10th day of October 2013.

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

Principal Officer of the 1st Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 2nd Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

Principal Officer of the 3rd Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 4th Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

Principal Officer of the 5th Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 6th Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

… … … … … … … … … … …… … … … … ... ... ... … … … … … …… ……….… …

Principal Officer of the 5th Plaintiff’s Company Principal Officer of the 6th Plaintiff’s Company
duly authorized and competent to depose duly authorized and competent to depose
to the facts of the case to the facts of the case

Presented for filing this 10th day of October 2013.

8|Page
…………………………
Registry Officer

Drawn and Filed By:

FK Law Chambers, Advocates

23, Barrack Obama Drive
Sea view – Upanga
P.O. Box 20787
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Copy to be Served Upon:

Permanent Secretary
Ministry Of Works
Samora Avenue, Holland House
P.O Box 9423
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Attorney General’s Chambers

Kivukoni Front
P.O Box 9050
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

9|Page