19970215 TZHC Dar es Salaam

·o IN ·'rHE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA -AT·DAR ES SALAAM (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 36/95 MICHAEL F·. MALILI •••••••••••• APPELLANT 0 Versus ANNASTAZIA W. SUDI •••••••.•• ~. RESPONDENT ... ,ill.J DG &'VlENT KYANDO, J: This is a second appeal i~ an administration cause origina- ting in the Primary Court at Ilala, Ilala District. The appe- llant was aggrieved by the decision of that court granting the .respondent's administration application in which was included a house which the appellant said was not part of the estate of the decea2 edhresuoodent.•a ·celative. He appealed to the Distri~t · t:ru-c t e ill.S"tric-e 1,.;our"'t 0. CourtL.disrriissed his appeal. B-,thing daunted, he now appeals ~ to this court. \ f cann.6Fi§£ into the rn..eari ts of the appefD-. This is ber.-ause thEi,lPrimary Court Magistrate adopted a procedure long abolished by the Magistrats, courts (Primary Cour~ (judgment ef Court) Rules, 1987 (GN 2 of 1988) in.making the decisi~n •f the c~urt. He suz~onedup to the asse;sors which is specifiqally·. prohibited by Rule 3 (3) of these Rules. He thyn De<r.eived opini~ns frc,m the assessors' when the Rules requ..ire the deeision ""'f the eourt to be a ~Aint one. On the i:1hole, as stated, the ,. •· .. decision has not been made in accordance with the rules and this should have been noticed by the District Magistrate when d~a11.ng with the first.appeal. I quash and set asicte·the pr('ceed~s, as f~om when the appe\~ant joined in as a party.Fresh pr~cee- di~gs from that stage/pe held, before a different Magistrate .l\' • I , and a different set of assessors. No order as to costs is made . is this decision J' neither for the appellant nor for the . :,.,' respondent. L.A.-A. KYANOO . .< i. CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. JUDGE ' ...... : ;, '\' . -iLltU.::_~;··•·~--.. 15.2.97 A• R. MdNENT()'. -~ ..-. _ __ ,t·. . .,"·,· .I .- ' SENIOR.DEPUTY REGISTRAR /