By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

82 TANZANIA LAW REPORTS (1987)T.L.RAgainst the Director of Immigration Services was incompetent for anotherreason. As Mr. Uzanda submitted the Director for Immigration Services was not aparty to these proceedings He was a stranger to the case. The ex-parte injectionwas made against a stranger Mr. Massati conceded but said that the court haddiscretion under section 95 of the Civil procedure code to make the order. I donot agree. Section 95 gives inherent powers to the court to make such orders asmay be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process ofthe court. It does not empower the court to make orders against stranger to thecase. There are provisions in the Civil procedure code for joined of parties andMr. |Masati could have applied for the Director of Immigration Services to bejoined as a parety to his application and then ask for orders against the DirectorThis was not done and I do not see how the injunction against the Director ofImmigration Services who was not a party to the case can be supported.The temporary injunction against the Director of Immigration Services can be setaside for another reason. Mandamus can only lie against the Director it it wereshown that he had been r3equested failed or refused to perform those duties.There is no such allegation in this case. As Mr. Salula learned State Attorneysubmitted on behalf of he Director of Immigration Service the respondentsemployment ceased the residence permit he hold is invalid. The respondent hasnot asked for another permit. If the respondent applies for another permit inanother class that would be considerd by the authorities to enable therespondent finalise his affairs in this country.Another point raised by Mr. Uzanda was that the ex-parte temporary injunctionwas issued against know principle governing temporary injunction. Learnedcounsel submitted that an application for an interim injunction must establishprime facie case with a probability of success and that the facts must show that ifa temporary injunction is not granted the applicant would suffer irreparable injurywhich cannot be adequately compensated by an awards of damages. He citedthe case of Giella v. Cassman Brown and C. Ltd (1973)Ea 358 at page 360 Itwas Mr. Uaznd’s submission tha in this case neither certiorari nor mandamus canlie. I do not wish to restate the facts of this case. All I can say is that it appears tome from the affidavits and the annexure that the respondent was employed byHebox Holland Engineering B.V and was only assigned by Hebox to work forMorogoro Canvas Mill Limited323