20140217 TZHC aRUSHA

20140217 TZHC aRUSHA

The appellant's remedy was to file objection proceedings in the primary court under Rule 70(1), not an application to the District Court. However, since the primary court failed to entertain her objection, and the District Court found irregularity but failed to exercise its revisional powers, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to order that the objection be heard and determined by a competent magistrate.

Citation
20140217 TZHC aRUSHA
Parties
Appellant: Christina Joakim; 1st Respondent: Ward Executive Officer; 2nd Respondent: Bruno Akonay; 3rd Respondent: Emanuel Shauri; 4th Respondent: Mabuu Shauri
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgment, Objection Proceedings, Locus Standi, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Revisionary Powers
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Execution of Judgment Objection Proceedings Locus Standi Supervisory Jurisdiction Revisionary Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christina Joakim

Appellant

Ward Executive Officer

1st Respondent

Bruno Akonay

2nd Respondent

Emanuel Shauri

3rd Respondent

Mabuu Shauri

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court erred in dismissing the appellant's application for lack of locus standi
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had an alternative remedy by way of objection proceedings in the primary court
  3. 3 Whether the District Court should have exercised revisional powers upon finding irregularity in the attachment and sale of land

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's remedy was to file objection proceedings in the primary court under Rule 70(1), not an application to the District Court. However, since the primary court failed to entertain her objection, and the District Court found irregularity but failed to exercise its revisional powers, the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to order that the objection be heard and determined by a competent magistrate.

Court Disposition

appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • The objection raised by the appellant on the attachment of the land in dispute shall be heard and determined by the Babati Primary Court by a competent magistrate other than the previous presiding magistrate.
  • All parties to be involved in the proceedings.