N
The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the subject matter was land held under customary law and no leave had been obtained from the High Court to vest jurisdiction in the district court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- N
- Parties
- Appellant: Chelestino Piva; Respondent: Remijus Wandawo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Customary Land, Primary Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Chelestino Piva
Appellant
Remijus Wandawo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the district court had jurisdiction over land held under customary law
- 2 Whether leave was required to vest jurisdiction in the district court
Ratio Decidendi
The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the subject matter was land held under customary law and no leave had been obtained from the High Court to vest jurisdiction in the district court.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- proceedings before the district court are quashed
- costs awarded to appellant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COWRT OF TANANIA AT ,IINGA (c) CIVIL APPEAL N0.1 QF12 (FROM THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT JP IRINGA AT IRINGA)IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.11 OF 1981 CP'LESTINO FIVAO ... ... .. .. APELLANT versus REMIJTSI WANDAWO .,. RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT MAINA, J. Be-fam the district court at Iringa, the appellant, Chelestino Piva, sued the respondent, Remijus Wandawo for shs.5,0/'= being the isilue for fou4ation of a house which the appellant had allegedly Qnt.ructed. The suit was diemissed, as the trial court held that the land in dispute belonged to the respondent. The evidence adduced showed that the dispute was over a piece of land on which the appellant was constructing a house. While the *ppellant said that the land helonged to him, the respondent claimed it was his lan41 allocated to him by a village Quncil. As Mr. Mwaksungula, learned council for the appellant rightly pointed out at the hearing of this appeal, the land in dispute was unregistered land held under customary law. The learned counsel submitted that jurisdiction in the matter was vested exclusively in a primary court and that the district court had no jurisdiction. No leave had been obtained to vest jurisdiction in the district court. It seems clear to me that under section 14(1) of theMagistrate's Coprts Act, Cap.537, which was then applicable, jurisdiction for the overy of the land in this matter or costs for the founation built on the land, was in a primary court. The subject matter of the suit was lana held under customary law and only a primary court could adjudi- cate on the matter. No leave had been sought and obtained from the High Court to have the matter heard in the district court. Such leave was necessary undr section 57(1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Tap,537 , ,ihieh was applicable when this suit was filed and decided. That being the poeit.ton, the district court t.acked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The proceedings before the district court were therefore a nulliby. This appal is allowed, with costs. Th. proceedings before the district court are quashed. AT IRINGA: W.J. NAINA JUDGE 7 A 1KASU 11JG 1A THE Ap:L:•T: 'QNDENT PRE!T L.