Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

20120607 TZHC Dar es Salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Plaintiff

Medical Express Tanzania Limited

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Amount Claimed: TZS 59,805,103.5

03

Procedural history

  1. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 7 June 2012

20120607 TZHC Dar es Salaam

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 13, Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 R.E. 2002

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 40(2), Magistrates Courts Act as amended by Act No. 25 of 2002

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.