19990316 TZCA Dar es Salaam

q paTw9Tp SM uoiotidd et tnoq aiq UGM sT 'uoopthi 9q4 pesstwtp ('r 'iy oo)j) 4=00 tTH q.nq MT jo 4UTOd U uo a4VOTjT4.XDO le xo; mO: tlTH ;Dlqq Ut tiot on.dd u tflEM dn P9MOUOJ t4 tOUt4 4xnoo 9T. qq. O. TcI Jo eot;ou V pepo-i 8H ouTvSp jsoTpuv 4anoo tTH O'P O. P9TVOddv Jaxl4anjptre Puv 4anoD 40TJ49T(l 9114 o4 piedcI tnotidth 0111 'ptr8i jo ao9d V jo Lzeooa.x ..Xoj 4u'eDTlddv et.pon njeooni q.uepuodx et4 eowt tnxv ';ino Ia'LuTJd u'q wç peotzawwoo SBUTPOaDOad at. 'cjig UOtStop 4PT44 99JeA6x o. 4.Tnoo ut3icm eouexeJeJJo Svm Vq uoT4voxTcTcTv q.uaxcI eq; i.noxq q.u1 -qdth3 97qq. txodre.xoqM ;otrçocI uo otjq.xo .xoj uoT4,eoTTddp we pGswstp qjnoD ST114 jo apnç $TUT S P R6*L-ZF UQ - :'v'r 'veIINro1 A1flOO IqHl do Di'rIflI Z 6i o ' 'CN UOt OTTdV tTA 966 t- &JVEflf JO cp tL 9114 pep (v'r 'TtttP 1t2U JO N peaddir 30 qjnoo atP JO SUTTrld eq woz; 93u9a9J9U .xo; uoTotTcIdV)( crv L1NVDI'Idd 'W3W ITIIM NM1T2g - recIcmv pepue.uz Uv JO 8T UI 966k JO 14 'OM ONaI '1IAID-V 'V . 2 'VIDMI3VDrI puv "V. P 'VJVwr 'rjf' wVuo3) vHsnav IV VIM V2N VL dO IVdV dO 1ffiOD allLI MI 4. single judge of this Court (Ramadhani, J.AII). Among the points presented before the High Court and later before the single judge for certification was the charge that the Primary Court made a serious breach of procedure in visiting the disputed land during the trial. Rejecting that point, Kapoor, A. J. said: The Primary Court has wide powers in hearing cases before it. it visit to locus in quo forms a Yery important part in the proceedings be'ore the Primary Courts in land matters. At the hearing of the applicatidn before the single judge this statement was vigorously attacked by the then counsel for the applicant who, according to the ruling of Pamadhahi, JA., waived a copy of the Magistrate& Courts (Civil Procedure in Primary Courts) Rules, 1964 and said that there is no provision in those rules which support Kapoor, Ag. J. In view of this contention the learned single judge perused through the said rules and came across rule 50 which states thus: The court may either on the application of a party or of its own motion at any stage of a proceeding, inspect any property or thing concerning which any question has arisen or may arise. The learned judge therefore agreed with Kapoor, Ag6 J. that the Primary Courts have wide powers in hearing cases before them and especially on inspection of property; and since he agreed with Kapoor, Ag. Je on all other matters, he dismissed the application before him. aspnp GIOUTO pU.XOt aqq 4utJ4 paTjqT4vq ew 0f4 UOtZtItAtO JO pue 0t4 [TGds PTflOM eweq ..IO ejam RTvj4uoo Oq4 JT PI £3otI;ep Ou 91 MuT JO ao tmJOUS T gr aouvaous T STq uo ezt1Tth?3 o. SuTXaee qou 9T ot qvq4 edot o9ju 9M •p9qnd STnP 9T3M 91rLI et eoutg ssoue.xi ;o uodumxcI aqj qnqaj 4ou ptp qT qnq 'pq ooq. 03U9j.9X9 $T JO 9JMUfl uaeq 9A?t R IIWT W pxtdc1 @Iq4 tnot •stxo 4 ou ptp en.x qorts 4vq4 quamnSav8utstjdjns oqq Acq pedwo.xd eum oTna otfl. .flQ wçod oq. s iror 'Tu-oT4pvwua Jo eqj olovj wioo.xd o4 uot p 9tflOO eTiedc1 OI xou 1fl03 4utp .XtGT1 ptr3 o tflt JO ?uOç9AOtc1 Otfl. JO 0flItA £q puuT penc1tp aTq4 pOO9d9U jnoo kxewTid Otfl qvqq M0U3 o4 pewn9o.xd SM 9UOSaaAa OSVP 9TT44 ui 'rc jo pezps eq o; pewnsxcI 9T euo&.iae tq uoi40 JO 0IflOO V e .xO uo - eep V ew k 9q4 eurç. LZOAO etqtidd i et; S; TOOdS 04 94aMOO OT44 jo eot;sxd 9 44 4OU S T I stg& ;o oLcoN uT pe9txdwoo einz pu 'pot9qnd SI 4 T OOtIO M1 aqq M0Uj 04 P@WnVOad 9t 0U0AX$A9 qUqq ST ..t9MtI'9 I0q$ 9T.TL UULAT V * 9T 4UuDT -[ddL-ot enoaq X0M9t.fl Swe aajjo OM 4sq4 St j4p dw S s JO ;no Vio.rtue ST II &POPT9 OuO lojosaiatIl 'M 90pnC eIUTS 0L4 JO uOt9toap aq4 puv 9UI9 aqj 110 quawwoo oq lqSTj etfl. pasnjoa SM j treoTTddv eta; 44anOD 1tH aq4 4IR o; peei q.ou $M Q 9t.X e9noaq () xed-qn •.cq euo 9A1t Suo9T0ep Otj p4.XoddttS 'uosied UT SUTa-u9CTdl2 09 'uapuodsoi eq puq .xetO aq4 uO o kes o4 om.9qn9 ;o FuTiq4ou pt 0t e; jo s.ueuoo ei; SaTqvadej wo.XJ jjvcTu pue uoxed UT P 9xe9dft aj •UO1OII5c1 01.J4 tfltt poltJ .txepi;;e 9tP JO (a) - (a) + racI ut a.xa saouuA9TJ1S S j 4TMOTTdCTe9141 #POS -T'QJ o -i e.ra papaCax £T9noTAexd sq.uiocl xoo notjqy epnç o2uta aqj Sq çç aTrLx 0 U0O atlZ 110 JIup2ux 993=1 en eo;eq ouea;a.x eW -, - - properly pointed out the existence of rule 50 and that this action was for the benefit but not to the prejudice of the applicant. We see no point for consideration by the Court0 is We skip sub-para (b) for the moment. Sub-para (c)Lnot different from sub-para (a) because it repeats that rule 50 was invoked without the opportunity of comment by both sides. The comments under sub-para (a) apply. But it. also says that rule 50 Was cited against the weight of evidence, and this hardly makes any sense. In any case, the weight of evidence and questions of credibility, assuniing the applicant has this in mind, are not matters for consideration by this Court in a third appeal.. Sub-paras (b) and (d) question the constitutionality of rule 50. This Court has no original jurisdiction in constitutional questions but the jurisdiction is vested in the High Court. The applicant is at liberty to try his luck there if he believes that the rule is infringing or is likely to infringe his rights. Lastly, sub-pera (e) raises questions of limitation and non-joinder. Limitation does not appear to have been raised at any stage before and cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. Non-joinder has consistently been rejected because it was ,not raised at the first appellate court where the applicant had the advantage of professional services. We are satisfied on the whole that there is no substance -' which we dismiss with costs. I ..- H DAT at ARUS&t this 16th day of March 1 1999. L.M. MF.ALI&5, S JUSTICE OF .PPEAL B .. SJ.MTM JUST EOF APFEZL -- K.S,K. LUGKINGIRI S JUSTICEff I certify that this is a true copy of the e original. DEPUTY P3ISTRàR S