19980831 TZHC Dar es Salaam 2
- Citation
- 19980831 TZHC Dar es Salaam 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 31 August 1998
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal and Certificate on Point of Law
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 31 August 1998
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal and Certificate on Point of Law
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The proceedings and judgments of the lower courts are null due to violation of Rule 3, as the judgment was not signed by all assessors and the magistrate where there was consensus, making the proceedings a nullity.
Court disposition
leave to appeal granted; certificate on point of law granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
- Certificate that there is a point of law involved is granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hamisi Athumani
Appellant Counsel: Mrs. WashokeraJumanne Makambi
1st RespondentKondo Malembe
2nd RespondentJudi Kiwamba
3rd Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal and Certificate on Point of Law
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proceedings and judgment of the lower courts are null due to violation of Rule 3 of the Magistrate's Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of the Court) Rules, 1987
- 02
Whether leave to appeal and a certificate on a point of law should be granted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and a certificate that there is a point of law involved, arguing that the lower courts did not do justice to him and that there was a procedural defect in the judgment.
- Respondent
- No specific arguments from the respondents are recorded in the ruling.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 3, Magistrate's Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of the Court) Rules, 1987
A judgment of the primary court must be signed by both the magistrate and all assessors where there is consensus, or by the magistrate and the majority of assessors where there is dissent, as required by Rule 3 of the Magistrate's Courts (Primary Courts) (Judgment of the Court) Rules, 1987.
- 02
PC Civil App. 22/92 Pili Mungi vs Nina Justina Mhaga; PC Civil App. 6/91 Thabiti Saidi vs Salum Rashid
Failure to comply with the signing requirement renders the proceedings and judgment a nullity.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The proceedings and judgments of the lower courts are null due to violation of Rule 3, as the judgment was not signed by all assessors and the magistrate where there was consensus, making the proceedings a nullity.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant could alternatively apply for review in the High Court due to this new revelation, which would expedite matters rather than appealing to the Court of Appeal.
Court disposition
leave to appeal granted; certificate on point of law granted
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
- Certificate that there is a point of law involved is granted.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 31 August 1998
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 31 August 1998
., . ,I ~ r TN THE HTGH roUR'T' OF 'l'AN~ANTA ( Dsm D'i st·.ri.c-:t. RP.gi st..r.y) A'l' DAR ES_ SAf,AAM PC CTVTt APPRAt NO. 93 OF 1997 (Orig·ini'lt.ing from K.inondon.i District Court Civjl Appeal No. 9\97 and Or.:i.ginnl. Manzese Primary Cour.t riyil rnse No. 1~7\95) HAMT S A'T'HUMANT ........................ .APPET,T.AN'l' VF.RSUS ,TUMANNP. MAKAMBT ...................... 1 ST RESPONDENT KONDO MAL8MBELE ...................... 2ND RESPONDRNT JDD KTWAMBA .......................... 3RD RF.SPONDEN'T' KAT.,RGRYA. ."!.!.. 'l'h:i.s is a nil ing in r.espect. of an appl ical:.'i on fo1- 1 ei'Jve to appeal to the Court of Appeal and also for a certificate that there i.R n point of lRw involved in the intendRd ~ppeal fit tn be deten,linArl hy the r011rt·. of Appenl. The Appf!l.·l;:,nt. is bei.ng n::ipn~sent,ed hy Mrs. Washokera, lerJrtied C<nll1sel. Hnin·i.si At.hmnani: Appellant, strnd t.he t.hn=~e Rei::;pon<ients, Jumanne Makambi, Konno MalRmbeJ.e and Tddi. Kiwamba for pnsRession of n h011se ;:il.legR<lly left hehjnd hy his dRCRased h.rothAl:": ,Tuma A thum,:1n 1 . HR lost in the primary court ,rn<i h iR r:tppaa 1 to the D.iRtrir.t- Court. WAR rJ·ismissRrl. ronr:lud·ing that·. the Mnn?.ASR Primary Court and the Ki.nondonj District. Court hnvR not rlom~ jtiRtir:e to h.i.rn he knockAd at. the doors of thi.s court hut his r1ppe,:;1l w.:=Js summaril.y rejected (Ki.leo, J.) for havi.ng
no rneritR at al.J. Upon sr.r11U ny of the pl"imary r:ourt 'l"P.<-:nrrl T have not.en thai', there is defect app;:ireht thereon that serio1J~Jy affects the lower cot1rts 1 proceedings. The Magistrnte is shown to have invited and rP.corc'led thP. ind i vi.c'lua l opinions of UH::i ,1:=-rnei=;sors, ;=rnd thP.re;:, f Ler pror:P.ROR<'J to r:nmpose r1 j11rlgement. which WAR not. signP.d hy the 1 ' ,' . / aRRAssnrs. This ~lAArly violAtRd 3 of thR Magjstrate's / R11lA Co11rt.i.:; (Priu,ar.y <7om·tR) (,Tu<lgRmenl·. of t:hP. r.cnn:t) RulRs, 1.987. Under rule 3 .- there is 110 recording of ind.iv iduaJ op.in ion of assessors except Urnt the MAgi strAt.e is n~quired to consnl 1-. with the F.tsses:=;ors, and if there :is a urrnnimous decjsi.on as WAS the case hen;i, he wou lrl. pror;r,ied t:o r,ompose a j t1<Jg111P.t1 t·. wh i di woo lr1 he signed by both hi.ms~if and the assessors. Legally there is no judgement of the cotJ:rt if i. t i.s not s 'i.gnAd by a J. l the i:l.Ssessors and Magi st r.i:ltA whRre then~ :is a cnncensu:=; on f .i na ings,. or.b"'11. 1-- m;:igir-:f·.l"Ah~ r.1nrl one nSRAFHff>r (thASR hAing t-.lrn lllnjority) in Ci':IRA one di RSfHd·.s ( whose <1 i ssen t·. ·i ng vi ewi=; .:11 so wnu i fl he n~conle1'J) . 'T'he r.onseq1.1erWAR of t.his defect. is t.o tnAke t.hB procAedings r!n<l j11rlgRment. of hot.h r.ourts he low Ft null .i t.y ( thAr.e is ;::i_Jong list of
n11thori.Ues on t·.his ie. (PC) Civil App.?.~\92 Pi.li M11ngi vs Ninn ,T11stinr1 Mhag;::i_: (PC;) r.ivil App.6\91. Thr;:ihi.111 Sni. d vs Si:llum RH i.<1 i n:::;111 ( HC) Regis f-. ry -unn~por 1·.Ad) . 'T'hP.y Rn~ Rn rl ec: 1 a red. T nm sure thrtt. t.hi s defect. escaped i 11,3overtnnt 1.y the att:.ent:ion of the r1dmi U·.ing j11nge whAn pi':!Rsit1g r! s11mmAry n~jAr.l:i.on order. Had she seen this shR would obv.iously hnve r:1<:hwitted the appeal. grantAd and the point of law Jn the premises 1.eavA is involvRd is the violation of Rule 3 as indicated. However, the above Apart, I would a<lvi.se thFl_t insteRd of r1ppP..::i 1 i ng to the Com:;t: of Appeal ,. r1nd,. AS the dA f ect had not cnme 1-.o t:he nttRnt-.ion of i·.he judge whffn slrn mr.1<lA 1-.hR or·<1Ar,. in otde·r to sr1ve time And expedjte m.::itters,. the Applicant' cotil<l prefer. an nppl i.r.1:1t ion hy w,3y of ri:wi Aw, for the H.i gh Court. l:o rev·i ew its dec.i.s ion hec;=:n1se of th is new r.eve 1 nt. i.on. T hnV8 so con cl urled ' ~- . ,· '.,, r'.,, I // bec;rnse most. l ikt=dy the Court of AppP.al wj ll declarP. the proceedings a null i.ty, senrl ing bar:k the parf·.ies to t:he primary court r.1nrl thr1t wo.11·1cJ he ROmF?. months to r:onie, r.1 f.ind.ing wh.ich would have been made earlier by this Court. (L. R. Krilegeya) ,TUDGF: Delivered on ..... . v .... ?1 \i.1~~
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.