Songora v. Khalfan (PC) Misc. Civ. App. 1-Dodoma-72; 4/4/72; Mnzavas, J.

 

Songora v. Khalfan (PC) Misc. Civ. App. 1-Dodoma-72; 4/4/72; Mnzavas, J.

The appellant appealed from a ruling of the district court, Dodoma, which dismissed his application that the respondent should have filed his case against him in the Babati primary court instead of the Dodoma urban primary court. The respondent’s suit was for damages for defamation against the

appellant who had accused him of committing adultery with his wife. The appellant contented that the cause of action arose in Babati. On first appeal the district court magistrate found that both the Babati and Dodoma primary courts had concurrent jurisdiction re. s. 17 and 18 Civil Procedure Code, 1966. It was explained in the High Court that the respondent’s justification for suing in Dodoma was that the appellant ordinarily resided there as an employee of the East African Railways Corporation in Dodoma. The appellant however established that he was also living in Babati where his wife also lived and it was in Babati where he is supposed to have stated that he found the respondent with his wife.

            Held: (1) “As to the question of residence of the appellant there can be no doubt that he is more resident in Babati where his wife lives than he is in Dodoma. With due respect to the learned resident magistrate I would like to point to him that the Civil Procedure Code – 1966 does not apply in cases filed in primary courts, Provisions relating to civil jurisdiction of primary courts are as laid down by the Fourth Schedule to the Magistrate’s Courts Act, Cap. 537. According to section 1(b) of the Schedule which section is relevant to the facts in this case, a primary court has jurisdiction in cases where the cause of action arose within the geographical limits of the court or if the defendant is ordinarily resident within the local jurisdiction of the court. In this case it is not in dispute that the cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction of Babati primary court and not within the local jurisdiction of Dodoma Urban primary court ….. The suit has more connections with Babati than it has with Dodoma. Added to the above I would like to mention … that the cause of action having arose in Babati which is for appeal purposes under the High Court of Arusha, it is administratively more appropriate if the respondent/plaintiff lodge his claim before Babati primary court. If he does so he is to be exempted from paying another court fees.” (2) Appeal allowed.