JOHN SANGAWE v RAU RIVER VILLAGE COUNCIL 1992 TLR 90 (CA)

 

JOHN SANGAWE v RAU RIVER VILLAGE COUNCIL 1992 TLR 90 (CA)

Court Court of Appeal of Tanzania - Arusha

Judge Omar JJA, Ramadhani JJA, Mnzavas, JJA

13 May, 1992

Flynote

Civil Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction of High Court - Suits concern immovable

D property which is land not held on a Government lease or a Right of Occupancy

granted under the Land Ordinance.

-Headnote

In an application for striking out a notice of appeal the Court was moved to make a E

ruling on the competence of the High Court to entertain a suit which concerned

immovable property which is not land held on a government lease or a right of

occupancy granted under the Land Ordinance F

Held: By virtue of the provisions of s. 63(1) Magistrates Courts Act, 1984 the High

Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Case Information

Order accordingly. G

[zJDz]Judgment

Omar, Ramadhani and Mnzavas, JJ.A.: Before this appeal came up for hearing Mr.

Mahatane, learned counsel for the respondent stated that while he was giving a copy

H of the Notice of Motion to the advocate for the Appellant in which mention he

wanted to argue on the striking out of this appeal as being time barred; he came across

the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1989, which is on all fours with

the present case. The decision he drew our attention to is to the effect that the High

Court I had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which concerned immovable

1992 TLR p91

OMARI JJA, RAMADHANI JJA, MNZAVAS JJA

property which is not land held on a Government lease or a Right of Occupancy A

granted under the Land Ordinance. The relevant provision of the law governing this

decision is Section 63(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1984 which reads:

Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force where

jurisdiction in B respect of the same proceedings is conferred on different courts,

each court shall have a concurrent jurisdiction therein;

C Provided that no civil proceedings in respect of marriage, guardianship or

inheritance under customary law, or the incidents thereof, and no civil proceedings in

respect of immovable property, other than proceedings relating to land held on a

government lease, or a right of occupancy granted under the Land Ordinance or

proceedings under section D 22 or 23 of the Land Ordinance shall be commenced in

any court other than a primary court unless the Republic is a party thereto or unless

the High Court gives leave for such proceedings to be commenced in some other

court.

We are satisfied that this following decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 25 of E

1989 is relevant in this case. It reads thus:

We held that the High Court has no original jurisdiction in the matters

mentioned above and cannot therefore order such proceedings to commence in itself.

Our conclusion on F this point is supported by the view expressed by this court in

the case of Frank M. Marealle v Paul Kyauka Njau [1982] T.L.R. p. 32.

G We think the rationale or policy behind the provisions of section 63 (1) which

deprive the High Court of original jurisdiction in these and involve the community at

the grass roots level, that the matters are better dealt with first by courts which are

closer to the people than the High Court. H

We declare that these proceedings in the High Court were a nullity.

The appellant would remain with that portion of land which he is at this moment

occupying. Either party if he is so minded can I

1992 TLR p92

start fresh proceedings in the proper court. A

There should be no outcry on damages or costs that may have accrued since the

inception of this case in the High Court.

B Order accordingly.

1992 TLR p92