19921124 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19921124 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 November 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 24 November 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Primary Court of Gairo and the District Court of Kilosa lacked jurisdiction to hear landlord-tenant disputes, as such matters are exclusively within the Regional Housing Tribunal's purview.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Proceedings in the Primary Court of Gairo and District Court of Kilosa quashed
- No order as to costs; each party to bear own costs
02
Material facts
Parties
A.J. Dailu Fundi
Appellant Counsel: Mr. MassatiMgungi J. Mwinyimvua
Respondent Counsel: self-represented03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Primary Court and District Court had jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes
- 02
Whether the respondent could recover expenses for completing the house via rent set-off
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The courts below lacked jurisdiction as the matter involved landlord-tenant relationship, which falls under the exclusive domain of the Regional Housing Tribunal.
- Respondent
- The respondent sought to recover expenses incurred in completing the house by setting off against monthly rent, and had succeeded in the Primary Court and District Court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rent Restriction Act, 1984
Jurisdiction over landlord-tenant disputes is vested exclusively in the Regional Housing Tribunal under the Rent Restriction Act, 1984.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Primary Court of Gairo and the District Court of Kilosa lacked jurisdiction to hear landlord-tenant disputes, as such matters are exclusively within the Regional Housing Tribunal's purview.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent is advised to pursue his claim in the Regional Housing Tribunal situated at the Court of the Resident Magistrate, Morogoro.
Court disposition
appeal allowed
- Proceedings in the Primary Court of Gairo and District Court of Kilosa quashed
- No order as to costs; each party to bear own costs
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 24 November 1992
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· 24 November 1992
AT lIOJ.0:¼Q;.10 (PC) CIVIL· ..";2'.:-:J..;L NO. 11 OF J.992 .A.:JDAlL.;JJ FL\IID<::30 ••••••••••••• e • • • "_\P::'DLL.ANT V0c..'SUS MGJJNG I Jlt-l'TifYIMVUA ••••••••• ~ •••••• .:CJS?Olr.D11I~ JUDGiiiENT This is an ap:.;ier.l a6 c.inst the decision of the District Court of Kilose. involvin.:; an a};)pea.l aGainst the decision of the Primary Cow:-t of Gairo 0 Gairo is a sma.11 settlmnent are2, within the Distrfot of Kilosa. The appellant is tl1e om1e:r of a house which he had leased to the respondent for use as a ba1~. AJ3 the house was not yet completed it was agreed between the parties that the ·respondent shou1d complete the house and reoove:r his expenses by setting off from the mo1JJ1thly l'ent ·he had to pay to the landlord • .After the :respondent he..d spent his money com:.?leting the house the landlord defaulted and the 1~espondent sued him in the Primary Court of Gail~o. · The res:;;,ondent won his co.se in the Prima:;:,y Court • I • and the aJroeal t<? tl1e District Cotu't \i2.G dismissed hence this appeal. · In this ap11e2,1 9 r,i:'o N,,.....,ssati learned coi.msel fo1~ the .appellant raised only one grot!nd, namely tha,t th0 COUJ'!ts bel'ow had no jurisdiction to deal w:i.th the ma.tter as the c,::.se involves a landlord and_ t8.l"'lant relationship which is t~e exclusive ·do · ·:.;~~ Regional Rousing Tribunz,lo On t3e evidence availe.ble I 2.c;r0e with ¥.lro
Massati, learned. - I advoca.te 9 -·that the issue in the c,~se involves the relationship of lanc.lo.i.'d and te112-.nt ai~d 2.s the i1ent '3.est:-.:-:i.ction .Act 9 1984 vests jurisd·iction over such matte:vs in the :legio112.l :C:ousins Tribunal only it follows that the Prima::..·y Covi·t of Gai:ro bad no jurisdiction to hear the case., It follows also -that the District Cou..t't had no jurisdiotiono 2 Accordin:::;ly I he:;.•c'oy qUc,sh t:1e proceed.:;_116 s in the J?rima,ry Court of GaiI·o and. the District Cou:.:-t of lulosa as none of them had jurisdiction in tl1e m11tte:.: • .- · Thec•R·o61,pontl:ont who w2.s the plc:,intiff in the P:da->,:r·y Cou:2t is advis-::d to pursue his claim in the :aegional :::ousine Tribune.I situated d t:10 Cou.-rt of the Resident Mc.c 6 istrate 9 Morogoro if he so wishes~ In view of 'what 1"1appened in this rnattm- 9 the foul t being that. of. the courts below I will make no- o:rder ""s to cost so The appe::::l is therefo1·e allowed £;.nd each pai'ty will bear his own costoo Order acco:rdingly •· /~/Vv--->.,___ - - ~ T.L. :Ivll-CT.:1)E ·
JOWE .11.1992 Delivered in Ch.2.mbe:rs at l\fo:r.·ogoro tl:is 24th clay of November, 1992 in the presence of Mr. Massati fo1~ appellant and Mr. Mwinyimvua the respondent in 11e!'son~ . . I'!..--~,.: - A . -1,.,_;__se_ r\ VT~ i: 11IKIT.DE" . JGDG::TI 24.1101992 f
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.