20100610 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The claim is founded on malicious prosecution and not on ownership of land; restoration of property does not convert the dispute into a land matter, so the High Court has jurisdiction.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20100610 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Abisai Emanuel Pande; Plaintiff: Mary Massawe; Defendant: Inspector General of Police; Defendant: Hon. Attorney General; Defendant: Mariam Nassor Kisangi
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 10 June 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Malicious Prosecution, Restoration of Property
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abisai Emanuel Pande
Plaintiff
Mary Massawe
Plaintiff
Inspector General of Police
Defendant
Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Mariam Nassor Kisangi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit given the nature of the claims
Ratio Decidendi
The claim is founded on malicious prosecution and not on ownership of land; restoration of property does not convert the dispute into a land matter, so 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 153 OF 2007 ABISAI EMANUEL PANDE ....................... . 1 sT PLAINTIFF MARY MASSAWE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2No PLAINTIFF VERSUS INSPECTOR ~gE.~L OF POLICE ..... · l~T DEFENDANT . 1 - . HON. ATTORNEY \ / GENERAL;.......... 2N° DEFENDANT ' MARIAM NASSOR KISANGI .. -. . ~ ..... . 3RD DEFENDANT ' Date of last order 1-9/3/2010 · · Date of Ruling 10/6/2010 -RULING Shangwa, J. _. On. 16/9/2008, the Advocate· for the ·-3~.ci defendant ,-,: . in , this c~~e raised a point prelim~nary 9bjec.tion that this ·: _.·court ~as rio jurisdiction to entertain Lan9- matters. On 8/5/2009, I ordered that the po1nt of pr~liminary objection 2 should be argued by way of written submissions and counsel for the parties complied with the order. In brief, the Advocate for the 3 rd defendant submitted that the plaintiffs among other things claim for restoration 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 District Housing and Land Tribunal depending on the pecuniary value of the claim. In reply, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the point of preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 3 rd defendant is misconceived, groundless, unfounded and frivolous. He referred the court to paragraph 6 of the plaint where the plaintiffs clearly point:. 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 , 2 nd 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 plaintiffs' 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 in to 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 , {\,. ,._·P ·'!: -~ 6 Delivered in open court this 10th day of June, 2010 in the presence of Mr. Mosha for the plaintiffs, Ms Temi for 1st & 2 nd defendant and Mr. Shirima for 3 rd defendant. A.Shangwa JUDGE 10/6/2010 MR. MOSHA FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: My Lord, we pray for a date of holding the First pre - trial conference. ORDER: First pre - trial conference 1s fixed on 18/6/2010. ., ~ ' A.Shangwa "' lf,t' .,; ,-· JUDGE 10/6/2010