N
The primary court proceedings were illegal due to lack of jurisdiction over registered land, and thus both the primary and district court proceedings are quashed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Appellant: Ali Mohamed Ausi; Respondent: Blucari Saidi Sheige
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Primary Courts, Registered Land, Quashing of Proceedings
- 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
Ali Mohamed Ausi
Appellant
Blucari Saidi Sheige
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the primary court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving registered land under section 18(1)(i) of the Magistrates Courts Act
Ratio Decidendi
The primary court proceedings were illegal due to lack of jurisdiction over registered land, and thus both the primary and district court proceedings are quashed.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Proceedings in the primary court set aside.
- Proceedings in the district court quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN" TIIE TIIGTI COtr.,.-lT Ol<' TAWZl'JifI.t... AT DAR ES S.'\.LILZJ1 (PC) CI:VIL APP!i:J.L 1JOo 37 OF 19137 (Frc;r:i the decision of the District of· ILALt. at S/3.1-:iora Avenue Civi.l Appeal No. 38 'of 1985) ALI mOITfJ.lli:D AUSI • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ .• .APPELIJU'JT Versus · BLUCA.RI, Sli.IDI SIIEiaJEo., •••••••••••••••••••••• •. • ..... BESPONDllliT ---.., R l! ,L· I N G 11/10/88 ' . , ... / Coraot Mnzavas,JK., Mohom for appellant l.Ishashi for t!-.,e respondent Mchom: The main ground of appeal is that since the adJJi.nstrati,0n case involved land wl:ich has been· registered, tho prir:iary court ha.cl n" jurisdiction to hear the case 1.mdor secti"on 18 (1) (i ). The district erred in not quashing ·the proceedin6is in the pri111£U7 co~. Wo pray that both decisions -In the prioary court and district court be quashed. I,1shashi- I agree with ey learned fr.:cr.C:.'s objection. RULIIJG- . It is amply clear and as Dl:gued by Mr. J.'.!chora and ccnoedod by Mr. I.1sh~hi that the provisions of ~ection 18(1) (i) of tllc Magistrates CoUrts Act bars prii:1DJ:Y Courts fron hearing cases where a :registered la....-id is involved. The proceedings (>f the prii:nry cov.rt were illegal nnd they arG accordingly hereby set aside. Li~ the proceedines in the prima.:cy court the prooeedin.c;s in the District Court were also a nullity and a.re quas4ed~ The pe.rties ma;y wish to file their n.pplioation in the district court or in t!1e liigh Court w]:ich ever court is found to be convenient I tiake no order as tu costs. I certigy that, this is a true Oopy of the original.