Leon Van Der Watt v. The Commissioner General for Income Tax, Misc. Civ. App. 34-DSM-71, 11/7/72, Mwakasendo, J.

Leon Van Der Watt v. The Commissioner General for Income Tax, Misc. Civ. App. 34-DSM-71, 11/7/72, Mwakasendo, J.

This is a preliminary point arising from six consolidated appeals brought under s. 101 (1)(b) (ii), East African Income Tax Management Act, Cap. 24. The appellant, Mr. Van der Watt, is acting in his capacity as the receiver for the Permanent Housing Finance Comp. (T) Ltd., and the Tanzania Legal Corporation purports to appear on his behalf. The respondents object that the said Corporation has no locus standi in prosecuting the appeal on behalf of the appellant.

            Held: (1) “It is not disputed that the Tanzania Legal Corporation makes an appearance in this matter by virtue of paragraph 4 (1) (a) of the Tanzania Legal Corporation (Establishment) Order, 1970, G. N. No. 32 of 1971 which enjoins it ‘to provide legal service to parastatal organizations on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Corporation and the parastatal organizations’. It is however contended by the respondent that the appellant, Mr. Leo Biljon Van Der Watt, in his capacity as receiver or otherwise is not such a parastatal organization as may properly avail itself of the services of the Tanzania Corporation in terms of the aforesaid Order. The aforesaid Order …… envisages only body corporate as the proper entities which could utilize the legal service provided by the Tanzania Legal Corporation. In cases where the entity concerned is a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporated, sub paragraph (c) of paragraph 2 of the Order provides that such a body of persons must be designated by the Minster responsible for legal affairs by Notice in the Gazette to be a parastatal organization for the purposes of the Order. With respect, I find it difficult to resist the force of Mr. Bishota’s [respondent’s counsel] arguments on this matter But Mr. Mukami of the Tanzania Legal Corporation argues equally forcefully that the construction of the order as canvassed by the respondent is the wrong one. It is submitted by him that the Tanzania Legal Corporation, who are advocates by virtue of the aforesaid Order, are duty bound to safeguard the interests of their clients, in this case, the permanent Housing Finance Company (T) Ltd., which

as commonly admitted, is  parastatal organisation … Mr. Mikami argues that as the sums of money which would be paid to the Commissioner General of Income Tax by the appellant, in the event of this appeal failing, are the same sums as would be paid by him in his capacity as a receiver to the Permanent Housing Finance Company (T) Ltd., the Tanzania Legal Corporation as legal Counsel to this parastatal organisation are entitled to appear in this matter in order to see that their client’s interests in the matter are not adversely affected …. I must clearly confess my inability to understand how a client – advocate relationship is created between the appellant and the Tanzania Legal Corporation. While it is under stand able that the Permanent Housing Finance Company (T) Ltd. should be most interested in the result of these proceedings, I cannot see how their interest in the matter would entitle them to appear before this Court by advocate or otherwise least of all, can I comprehend how these same advocates while claiming to act for the Permanent Housing finance Company (T) Ltd can at the same time act for or appear on behalf of the appellant receiver. It is abundantly clear in my opinion, that if one puts a proper and reasonable construction on the relevant provisions of the Tanzania Legal Corporation (Establishment) Order, 1970, one would inevitably reach the sound and logical conclusion …… that the appellant in this case is not and can not be an entity which can avail itself of the services rendered by the Tanzania Legal Corporation.” (2) Preliminary point upheld.