PILI JUMA BILALI v ABDULLAH KHALIFA 1986 TLR 201 (HC)

PILI JUMA BILALI v ABDULLAH KHALIFA 1986 TLR 201 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dodoma

Judge Lugakingira J

5th June, 1986.

CIVIL REVISION 2 OF 1986

Flynote

D Civil Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction - Contractual tenancy - Whether

Primary Court has jurisdiction over the matter.

Rent Restriction Act, 1984 - Contractual tenancy - Jurisdiction - Whether Primary

Court has jurisdiction over the matter

-Headnote

E A dispute over the terms of a contractual tenancy was entertained in a Primary

Court. The dispute was within the ambit of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984.

Held: A primary Court has no jurisdiction over a dispute on the terms of a contractual

tenancy. F

Case Information

Order accordingly.

No case referred to.

[zJDz]Judgment

G Lugakingira, J.: The dispute in this proceeding was over the terms of a contractual

tenancy. The proceeding was commenced in the Urban Primary Court at Singida and

terminated on appeal in the District Court. It then came to the attention of the

Resident Magistrate in-charge who was of the view that the two courts had no H

jurisdiction in the matter in view of the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984.

He therefore forwarded the records here for appropriate orders.

I have had the opportunity of perusing the Act but it is not clear to what extent it

ousts the jurisdiction of the courts in I matters arising under it. There is a long list of

powers, including the power

1986 TLR p202

A to exercise jurisdiction in all civil matters, which are vested in Regional Housing

Tribunals, but it is not clear whether those powers are exercisable to the exclusion of

the courts. This important question cannot be answered in the present exercise

where I have not had the advantage of arguments and must await a proper occasion.

B That said, however, I agree with the learned Resident Magistrate in-charge that

the Primary Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The jurisdiction of primary

courts arises where the law applicable is customary law or Islamic law, or where

jurisdiction is otherwise conferred by statute. The present case arises out of a

landlord and tenant agreement C which related to premises situated in a rent

restriction area and there is no provision conferring jurisdiction on primary courts in

that sphere. It follows, therefore, that the purported proceeding in the Primary Court

was a nullity as was the appeal arising therefrom.

D Accordingly, the proceedings are quashed in their entirety. The plaintiff is at

liberty to pursue its remedies in the appropriate venue.

Order accordingly.

1986 TLR p202

F