19940310 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appeal is allowed because the previous suit was not finally decided at the time the Magistrate dismissed the present suit; therefore, the bar of res judicata did not apply. The Magistrate should have stayed the suit under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, not dismissed it as res judicata.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19940310 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Charles Moses; Appellant: Paulo Meela; Appellant: Joseph Musitti; Respondent: Registrar of Buildings; Respondent: K.M. Rogathe
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Stay of Suit, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Charles Moses
Appellant
Paulo Meela
Appellant
Joseph Musitti
Appellant
Registrar of Buildings
Respondent
K.M. Rogathe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit was barred by res judicata
- 2 Whether the Principal Resident Magistrate erred in dismissing the suit as res judicata while an appeal was pending
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is allowed because the previous suit was not finally decided at the time the Magistrate dismissed the present suit; therefore, the bar of res judicata did not apply. The Magistrate should have stayed the suit under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, not dismissed it as res judicata.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Suit struck off by the Principal Resident Magistrate to be restored.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
) J& TIIE IIIGII C('l.J"RT l'JF TAI'IZ.AHIA . OIVIL APPEAL NO .. 6 OF 1985 ( I) c.;:::;ltl,'.i:DS Mt'.SNi • (2) PAULO MEEi.fA • • ( 3) JOSEE'II MUSITIT , .! . ~ ..,.. o • • • .APPL!CAN.I: "\'/:IlRSUS ( I) ?JTIGIS'r:w. f-<F ..D'JII,,,.DJGS ( 2) IGriI. ROG1:..T'i'E, , ..•• " , • , ••••• P.E:lPOl'f.DEl.if.l: • J TT ~- G M EN T :MKU:DE, J: · Thi:ii is an ~peal o,eP.ins.t a ruling of the Prinoi:ral Resident Magistrate 'of Lar os_ SalGam at Kisutu in which he dismissed the auit •n th~ greund iilmi; tho rno.:tt··,r is ros jud.ioata. 'I'he first appellant, cru.:RI.Jil3 MOSES, wn.s suo·d 1)~ -:;}rn sec(mQ res:pond0nt, K.M. ROGA'.ITI.]}1 in RM Civil Ca9.1 lfo~6 of 190/~ t.,r vace.nt p0ssossion 0f apa.rtm~nt Ne ut2 en !'let N•• 2eo67/93 along 1Vlorc,g0.ro Road., :Dar cs Salaam whi•h is ta• suit ';premisws in th,) 1:>resont apT,,z,al which started as BM: Ci'"Til ,. 19e,4. . 'G.l,arl\JS Hoses icst tha _suit in tho Resid,mt Magistrates t . . . Oasc. N•.6•·•:f' ' O.irt ~ • where :a.gath:3 1·rG:' .. r.0r.;Jared tho lav.·:fr.1 t .•ma;r~ (},:: the sui-t ~remi~. 1 Ie -~, a.l'l:p~ed ·t• the Iii@'l Cc:>urtl) ITis iippeal was ·dismissor. with eests. Charles M"se13 ai)pecle<t" tc, the.'."-_,!,< :,.: ,J..pp0r..l a.nc1., in an u.,.'1. :pre._e·c.•ntet ~~v•, tk~ · oouT·t; :1f A;peal in ·-~> i_,: ·· ~-,--nJ. lJo. 26 .,,f 1984, entarei. a oens•nt ••e S•~.aE!ide ~ a nullityo . j~ent t© th.e ~ffec~ tha" -~11: 0 vi.u.6 ,n.:,n·t ·,;f ;he r:igh U~urt (Mnzavas JK) . ' • ·-.. ·hil• · the apucLJJ. r;,r Che·,:-·L ..,.~ }f.;ses i;, L ..., ')_;,,(,_ v 1.;•.L Ap11eal was still . p~,BM Oi-.:..-il"' Ca,a(.) !o.6(9 o't ·1904.oam,<: i'•.Jr hi_,a:rd...>1g before Masn.ncb.e,l'RM1 as he then .-ra.ci, wh~, aftc,r hearing c0ur.,,sr:,J f,:.:r )8:th parties •bse...-ved: "I -ihw.k·I ~~e wiiih ,.~,,. KijUt;:- bliu.t the matter, is in f'aot, I'QS jucl.ioata" The fr:.~..es frac:1e~1 by Mr"' Mara.hd•, are in..f'a.ot. .,. wlµoh ·r·rera eliredly in issue:, or c~'h~tru•tively, a.. issu:.'ls . ~ oa.n."l'J.•!r!; h)<:• tl::.e roas-:m for Mr,, .Maran_cL~ ts splitting hairs, &S .~ I it w0rr;, and suggesting that if. we at:ju.dioab~ en what- h;a wants . ' • ill! tn Q,(ljuc.:i.cate 5 the . conso;;_Ul!>'.(1.ceS (uay ll'">t a.ffe•t t~ •aoisi•ns . ' ..., . .bl' C'ivil ll.pr,eal N.--.,21/r.t~ r' apel11gizo for ~f nft *0I'1;:llle te · authr.rilfos cite?. 'Jy VJX., ~a.rw.P, but this I"faT, beoa.usr it ie . ,clea:r in rzy ~:in~.• ·t:'la~ t:\,,.c mat~er is res. jUfioata, 11 It ls ti,."is ruling th~t j:C~ tp.reo a:p:Jollants a.ro n~ ¥ 1 ~ in· tkis ...a.~:,aal. ' ~l filay r''l rortinent tp ,:ont' i·~.n \qre t~a-b t•r tf'~e plaintiffs/ ;,~:1,,11.,nts are 4erab"rp 0f a :;::artn.:;rsb:i~ called 11 :rn.LE ~ ~~• . _ftrm~•·r •y f~/ ~;f' yartn(".rBhi) fatn. 3tth 1-ec"'mbe'r 1,,2. j l 4 .. "' · ·• "/ 2- . . .... .. · ~- _, 2 On 8th June 1SG3 t~~e tl~ee partnel'S Kere ,ffered a tellc.'J'l•Y by -..he Rf!cistrar of :I3uildinC,13 in respr-ot rft tt;_J.l t:1··s0 prr.:.o.ise:¥ knmm wS apartmen-t n:J.1.'lbe.I" 0C2 -.n; the r::::o,mcl_ flror . f -:;he 1Juildinc <'11 plct No 2006/93 Moi•:~co::.·o Ro2,dr in the cit;.- Centr ·: , f l'•ar as SalL'A!ll.. 11 ·· Ae·cordinc; to t:11.') plaint Charles I:Ioses~ who fs the 1st plaintiff, ecoupies th...,s0 p:•e;;1is0s awl.. he'.$ been in occu::;,atie:n tJ:ince 195.9 when ha becar.D.e a te;1c.,nt r:,f rne L.,G .. 1..b::ulhussein, the former Oim~r •f the rt.iildincr pria tr, its ac~_uisi ti,.n under t~10 i~-:,quisition <,f .Iluildings il.ot, 1971. The plaint fw.ther alleges tn.c,t in 1931 the second defonacant, R•1:s~tho, request,:id C!.1c..rlos Mns'es to share the suit :premises, the-·ef'f'ice sto;t'·e at t~10 b2,_.1;:, and Cb.c.rlef'l :Moses weleomed thi:i second defendant t~•ra.rily on co:1di ti, n thct he seeks his 4.lm accommod.atien·· iu'ld. vaoate wl:en requested to do soo When t:1e time cc.me the socond 'dofendo.nt dof'aul tod. ti1e writte-n stateraent of d;:ifenoe this suit ·•ugb.t ·U be • • ttay~d becauso t~e matter in issue is also .gire~tly and subst.m1tially in issue in Rl'-i Civil Case lfr '56 @f 1984• whiol1 gave rise te High C•-qrt Civil Appeal No 21 ,.,f 1984 whc:Je epp8al to tl1e court @f Appeal •:.is · pending. The d~fc:100 •::'..oEies t)1e allsgations in the plaint n;nd puts.the plaintiff te- strict pr,;cf -!.;'.· .,·, · ·,f'-: 2hr, ciefendnnts assert that the 1 • -::c> the se~nd defondant ReG'.i,strar f,·f Tiuild.incs >t:..d. ·. ;-:i;,-~"l'i ·r ::-i:locn/Jed tho f;!Uit promisos. Tho .:i.:;c;, __ 1 i: _r,. •,~:,,Ject.1.1(/l F 11erws that j~~ant was entered ox pa.rte, n.cainst the Ro.;:.."'·~.:.'ru.' ,.;, ..hlldngs cm 27 .9.84 fellewing T:a.e a:ppellcUJ.ts lists@. ;;rwon g:round.s :,f a.1-ipoal :mt in th'.> oourso •f ' - . heaving ef this a1)peaJ....,:,nl·y tw0 substa:.0.tiyq g.rr,,unds w@rc orguod by' Mr. Semgalawo, loa.rnod .Jr.;unsol f ,J' the &.};i)ellf'· ... t8::. The f'est w_~r• aba.!1;d-cncd~ The first ci•ound is that tho loarn~•i Principa,l Resid,!)nt Ma.cistratc . ·." :• g_· . erred in law in ro~ior;tin&," the e.:;;: pn:rte judo:i(;Jnt U{sainst- th.i first respenient, . passed ,y his e1m ,ourt,. and in so. d@inG he w.r-ongly cqnstitutf1 him an . appella~e tri 0U11ulr With due rer:reot to l.VIre Semgnlawe th0r~ is nothing in the rulixig awenloo against to suggest that tho 0::: parto jUf-{Pont • t - • \ ~a.inst ~the Regint:.:-ar /"If Buildings has l)t1en rejecteflT 8n th, ,,ntrary, tho l.oarned. ;'.1'~1c~::_)nl Rcside~t Ma{sistrate f:pxessly ~~r hios_olf to RM Oivil ij~e },ti 66 of 19G4 and. the fn.ct thct Charles Mose~ wht is . -the appellant in 1Iich Cauxt Civil ~:ppec.l N~,21 0f 19D;t. is nrrl~a.cuting ttis suit aga,in.q-l; Roeq.the. and. tbe Ilegl.i:t~Ta.r ff' Tiuila..:Lngs, ' ' ..../~ • 3 • • • f ~' As the. R_?gisto:c of· Buildins,s ,·rns nd a p2.i:'ty in fill'! C!VIl., 0.aa" ·N••-"719&4 thecnm:plaint l)y It.,., Set1galc1,we i:J not juntifieci.. Grantee, that ~x pa.rte .1: t, • lJ • jurlo'7fllent waa pD.,GGod P.,.8'ainst the Registrn.r ef Bui\din[:,'S on 27.9~84 '· I) tb.• prr:-iont suit 1-:01..lld still c-ntinuc br-twoen Churles· Mos~s and his i . .~ \t, ~ ·~ twl' partners r.n t:10 "no hCl1,--._ an-'!. K.M .. Roc;cth121 on the other. T'ae s~e reas··.ninc 1.mod ::;:r t:,; ::..eo..rned. Principal Resident Mac.,i.st:.:-at• would ap:9l3r ovun a:i:-:;er the eli~.1ino.tic-n ,-:,f the Registrar of Buildings • The second c;r[ und r<f appeal relates ·bo rer; judicata•..The •omplaint . ~ere is tho,t rrn judioata :'..,...,es n. t _appl;r beceuse at the tim. of dooisi•n BM Civil Case ~~o. 66 '."f 19G4 was not· final}-y decided as an appeal te the Court cf Appou.J.. wan still p~nc1..in6<> It would lqlpear fro'ra -.;:ie ruling appealed against -t:12-t the learned Principal '.Resident J"Y.4i,gis-.rata .-1as an.a. awa.rl'> that an ap]:leal ,ms pen._iinc, · l'lino~ hfj eiays so in his ruling, ho qu1:1tes seoti'.'n G cf t~10 . Civil Prooecl.ure Code which decls l.i"t:1 11 Stay cf Suit 11 ratl1er thro1 11 :a.es ju:'.icda11 ·which he says ap.p.li•s in this • I• case. With resp-'1ct 1 I -!;hi:rilc this wclS a.n n.ccidantal slip on ·ihe po.'rt ·•f tho learned Princi:puJ. RosLl2nt Magistrateo Ile ~ught ttt havi- ••q•• the Guit as .. soo-tion G·c:r tbo Oir. ~.J. ?ro0odur(., C0de which he has .quvtod morely 1 ... ,._ ; • ,olt " bars the. ocurt fr~r-. 11 pJ~ocoof.ing w;th the trial." Section .9 itf tlie Code .... . . . . . which rt.eals with R,;s jud.ic~,ta 1:.:2.I's the oou:rt from trying m1y •uit and I. n•t junt proc0oii..'1G w2.th -t:. ___ <..;_c ~ soc"ti,:111 G dace. •· ' I w,-i awa:c-'? that the G·, :c' r:t -\::_:-;,:;,.el bar: ~l.ready finally di.•JX>ocd ._¢ the appoal in R\i Civil 00,i:H., ·1v,,¢ 66 ?f 19Di.-o ::!: t is thoref~r• fe:;:-,. the pa.rtios to a:hooao u::.iat ic nGw ~h: best cc,-m~se t~ adopt,, Dut fer•ib.e purp~s os of this .rir::pr~al I arr. 1 oft with no .::i:J ~ ~0.i:1 -but to aJ.l•w it and ,_,erd~r that. t:io. rmit struck off by tl;lo lea:rncd Principal Resid,mt ,. M¾,rj_E,!;rat~ be r-;.st-.:-,::-od... In vie,-r '-f that has tranopired· I will :.:iake '.9,." .; ,.,.,.- •rder . as to costs • 'I.'. L. ' lliKlJIE, , JUDGE t . 7.2.94 10.3.9.4 . OerSffii .A..RolYia.J'.l.~tc, SJJR Semgalaw,:--f,r tll-- appellant Mrs Oana fer_ tll,· 1st rospl')ndont ,lasent .-:f,:,r onr~_ rC'!spon:lon~. ·' ,IC.N:t1.,,r.t_,_, . ( . .. "-~- 1 • ' (' C!;lI't: J1.adg,Gnt read bcf ,,re the ;pm-tier.: • ., i •