20180803 TZHC Arusha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF. ARUSHA AT.ARUSHA CIVIL REVISION NO. 16 OF 2017 (Originating from P.C Karatu civil Case No. 116 o/2012 and Karatu District Court Civil Court Appeal No 12 o/2014) JONAS BAKU RU. ■■■■ • ■ ••• ■ •• ■ •••••• ■ ••••• ■ • ■■ • ■ • ■ • ■ • ■ I •• ■■ I ■ I~ ■■■ •••• ■ .APPLICANT VERSUS WILLY DAFFI ...................................................... ·~··· RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last order: 15/3/2018 Date of Ruling: 3/8/2018 BEFORE: S.C. Moshi, Judge. The ruling was taken by the court suo moto. The revision was opened upon consideration of the complaint that was lodged herein by Flora Jonas Bakuru. Flora Jonas Bakuru complained against the Karatu Primary Court. She alleged that she is wife of Jonas Bakuru who was charged of using abusive language against Wilbroad Dafi. The husband was convicted of the offence vide Cr. C. No. 150/2012. Thereafter Wilbroad Dafi opened a Civil Case, against Jonas Bakuru; Civil Case No. 116/2012. ·wilbroad Dafi sued for defamation because he had failed to prove the Criminal charge. 1 '1 He prayed for orders to be paid Tshs.5,000,000/:=. He won the case, the court (karatu Primary Court) ordered Jonas Bakuru to pay Tshs.5,000,000/=. Jonas Bakuru appealed to the K9ratu District Court, vide Civil Appeal No. 12/2014. However the Appeal was·.dismissed. Thereafter, the Decree Holder initiated execution proceedings. The decree holder (Wilbroad Dafi) identified Jonas Bakuru's house. The House is now subject of public auction to recover the debt. The complainant alleged that the attached house is a matrimonial and family house hence cannot be subject of attachment. I have considered the complaint, the records and the relevant laws and I have the following observations: The Primary Court had n·o jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Its jurisdiction was limited to recovery of civil debts whose claim was not exceeding Tshs.3,000,000/= and unlimited jurisdiction in matters relating to Islamic and customary law; see section 18(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) and S.18(1) of the Magistrate's Courts Act, Cap. 11 R.E. 2002. The claim before the primary court was neither for. recovery of civil debt nor was it an Islamic or customary claim. Even if it was a civil debt recovery claim, yet the pecuniary jurisdiction could · be limited to T.shs.3,000,000/= only. That said, it is obvious that the Primary Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. I therefore quash and nullify all the proceedings and judgment in respect of Civil Case No. 116/2012 of Karatu Primary court. 2 1 t :1 i1 :1 .;I 11 II ri Iu I I I I likewise, I quash all proceedings r~lating to its execution. I I !I Ii in respect of Civil Case NO.l16/201f are set aside. All orders made I ! It is so ordered. No order as fo costs. 1: ' I • ! . 1I I ' I further order that the Ag. RE)Sident Magistrate in-charge should <la// I I I ! the parties and read this decision to them. )111 i :\ ' /I' !' I The file to be returned to the D(strict ' I Court. The DRM i/c to summtjn I the parties and read the Ruling to the/n. I I i I ~~ s.c. Mlfsi-,1 I JUDGE ' ,,,'/ 3/08/2018 . I I I' !1 3