20100610 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 20100610 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 10 June 2010
- Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 10 June 2010
- Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The claim is founded on malicious prosecution, not on ownership of land. The request for restoration of property does not convert the dispute into a land matter. Therefore, the High Court has jurisdiction.
Court disposition
Preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- No order as to costs
- First pre-trial conference fixed on 18/6/2010
02
Material facts
Parties
Abisai Emanuel Pande
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. MoshaMary Massawe
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. MoshaInspector General of Police
Defendant Counsel: Ms TemiHon. Attorney General
Defendant Counsel: Ms TemiMariam Nassor Kisangi
Defendant Counsel: Mr. ShirimaAmounts and remedies
- Claimed Damages for Malicious Prosecution: TZS 200,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit given the nature of the claims
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The 3rd defendant argued that the plaintiffs' claims concern land matters and should have been filed in the High Court Land Division or District Housing and Land Tribunal, depending on the pecuniary value.
- Respondent
- The plaintiffs argued that the preliminary objection is misconceived, as the suit is for damages for malicious prosecution and restoration of property, not a land dispute.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning
Jurisdiction is determined by the substance of the claim, not merely the reliefs sought.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The claim is founded on malicious prosecution, not on ownership of land. The request for restoration of property does not convert the dispute into a land matter. Therefore, the High Court has jurisdiction.
Court disposition
Preliminary objection overruled
- No order as to costs
- First pre-trial conference fixed on 18/6/2010
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 10 June 2010
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 10 June 2010
-1
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
I
AT DAR ES SALAAM I CIVIL CASE NO. 153 OF 2007 ABISAI EMANUEL PANDE ........................ 1sT PLAINTIFF MARY MASSAWE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2ND PLAINTIFF
I
VERSUS I INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ... . 1sT DEFENDANT I HON. ATTORNEY GENERA11 ........... 2ND DEFENDANT MARIAM NASSOR KISANGI .. ... . .. .. 3RD DEFENDANT Date of last order 19/3/2010 Date of Ruling .. 16/6/2010
I
RULING Shangwa, J. On 16/9/2008, the Adrcate for the 3 rd defendant in this case raised a point preliminary objection that this · · d'1ction court h as no Juris . t0I entertain . L an d matters. 0 n 8/5/2009, I ordered that thJ point of preliminary objection 2, I should be argued by way of written submissions and I counsel for the parties complied with the order. 1 In brief, the Advocate for the 3 rd defendant submitted I that the plaintiffs among other things claim for restoration I of the document of title and a, house. He contended that as ' the claim concerns Land matters, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit in the High: Court, land Division or in the I District Housing and Land , Tribunal depending on the I pecuniary value of the claim. I In reply, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the I point of preliminary obj ectioA raised by counsel for the 3 rd I defendant is misconceived,· groundless, unfounded and I frivolous. He referred the court to paragraph 6 of the plaint ! where the plaintiffs clearly points out that the suit concerns a claim of damages for malicious prosecution of 3 the plaintiffs by the defendants, and restoration of the properties taken from the residential premises of the plaintiffs, and restoration of all documents which were taken from the plaintiffs' premises at Ubungo, and restoration of the plaintiffs' house which was illegally handed
over to the 3 rd defendant. According to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the court has been called upon by counsel for the 3 rd defendant to determine as to whether or not this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no where in the Notice of Preliminary Objection is it indicated that this court is also required to decide as to whether or not the plaint was properly signed or verified. I will therefore deal with the issue of jurisdiction only. 4 In order to find out as to whether or not this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, I went through the plaint by reading each paragraph. Paragraph 6 of the plaint by clearly shows that the plaintiffs' claim against the 1st , 2nd and 3 rd defendants who are jointly and severally sued is for the payment of Tshs 200,000,000/= (Two hundred million shillings only) being damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs by the defendants, restoration of all properties taken from the plaintiffs' residential premises, restoration of documents of title and other documents taken from the plaintiffs' premises at Ubungo and restoration of the plaintiffs' house which was illegally handed over to the 3 rd defendant. In my view, the claim involved between the parties is not land. The claim. is founded on malicious prosecution. As correctly submitted by counsel for the plaintiffs, the 5 plain tiffs' claim is not founded
on ownership of land. The mere fact that the plaintiffs· are inter - alia seeking for restoration of documents of title and restoration of the house which was illegally handed over to the 3 rd defendant in a suit founded on malicious prosecution does not render the dispute between the parties turn into a land dispute. Therefore, I overrule the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 3 rd defendant. I make no order as to costs. A.Shangwa
JUDGE 10/6/2010 t I I 6 I Delivered in open court this +0 th day of June, 2010 in the presence of Mr. Mosha for th~ plaintiffs, Ms Temi for 1st & I 2 nd defendant and Mr. Shirima for 3 rd defendant. I I A.Shangwa
I
I
JUDGE 10/6/2010 I MR. MOSHA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: My Lord, we pray 1 for a date of holding the First. pre - trial conference. ORDER: First pre - trial conference is fixed on 18/6/2010. ~ A.Shangwa
JUDGE .~ .A~ 10/6/2010 • "
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.