20120607 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 20120607 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 7 June 2012
- Posture
- Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 7 June 2012
- Posture
- Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court lacks jurisdiction because the amount claimed falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate and District Court, and the law mandates suits be filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to try them.
Court disposition
Suit struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Suit is struck out
02
Material facts
Parties
A. B. Imani Pharmacy
PlaintiffMedical Express Tanzania Limited
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Amount Claimed: TZS 59,805,103.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a suit where the claim falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate or District Court
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff claims Tshs.59,805,103/50 from the defendant.
- Respondent
- The defendant argues that the claim falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate/District Court as per S. 40(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act and that the suit should have been filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it, as required by S.13 of the Civil Procedure Code.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 13, Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 R.E. 2002
Every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.
- 02
Section 40(2), Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Act No. 25 of 2002
Pecuniary jurisdiction of Resident Magistrate and District Court covers the amount claimed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction because the amount claimed falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate and District Court, and the law mandates suits be filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to try them.
Court disposition
Suit struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Suit is struck out
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 7 June 2012
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· 7 June 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 174 OF 2009 A. B. IMANI PHARMACY . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAINTIFF
VERSUS MEDICAL EXPRESS TANZANIA LIMITED . . . . . . . . DEFENDANT Date of last order-:· 15/ 12/ 2011 Date of Ruling - 7/6/2012
RULING Shangwa, J. This is a preliminary objection raised by the defendant against the suit. The point of objection raised herein is that this court has 1 no jurisdiction to hear or determine the suit between the parties. In his written submissions, counsel for the defendant sul;)mitted that the plaintiff is claiming from the defendant ,Ill ... j I, .... 2 t.., I a sum of Tshs.59,805,103/50 which falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Resident Magistrate/District Court. He contended that as a claim of .. Tshs.59,805, 103/50 falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts as per S. 40 (2) of the Magistrates Courts Act as amended . by Act l\T<;>. 25 of 2002, the plaintiffs suit·ought to have been filed_ either in the court of the Resident Magistrate or. in the District Court even though this c,ourt has pecuniary jurisdiction to try a suit in which the claim involved is Tshs. 1 only. In support of his conte·ntion, he referred the court to S.13 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 R.E. 2002 which provides as follows and I quote:-. "S.13 Every suit shall be ins~ituted in . ' • • . ," r ~• -~ . the ·court. ·, of · the. · lou,est g-rac!,e competent to try it and, for the 3 purposes of this section,·· a court of the Resident _Magistrate and the District Court .~hall be deemed to be courts of the same grade". It is not in dispute as· ~ubmitted by
counsel for the defendant that the amount c~aimed by the plaintiff from the defendant in this case is Tshs.59,805,103/50. It is true as submitted by counse~ for the deferidarit that this amount falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of the Resident Magistrate and the· District Court. This is as provided for under S. 40 (2) of the Magistrates Court Act as amended by Act No. 25 of 2002·. Now, so long as the amount claimed 1n the s-ui t falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said courts and so long as it is a mandatory requirement of law tp.at every suit shall be instituted in the court of th.e lowest grade
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.