19920218 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Citation
- 19920218 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 18 February 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 18 February 1992
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that house No. 1 Somali Street was the subject matter in both Probate Cause No. 91/60 and Civil Case No. 154/09. Since the issue had already been finally determined in the probate proceedings, Civil Case No. 154/09 was incompetent due to res judicata.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Proceedings in the District Court and Primary Court are quashed.
- Appellants to bear costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kazi Karambi
ApplicantOmari Mtoro
Appellant Counsel: Mr. Al-MamariKhadija Karambi
Appellant Counsel: Mr. Al-MamariHajuma Wadi
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Furakasi Ngula03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Civil Case No. 154/09 is barred by res judicata due to prior determination in Probate Cause No. 91/60
- 02
Whether house No. 1 Somali Street was subject matter in both cases
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants argued that the subject matter in Probate Cause No. 91/60 was different from Civil Case No. 154/09 and that house No. 1 Somali Street was not involved in the probate proceedings.
- Respondent
- Respondents, through counsel, raised a preliminary objection that Civil Case No. 154/09 was res judicata as the dispute over house No. 1 Somali Street had already been determined in Probate Cause No. 91/60.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Civil Procedure
Res judicata bars subsequent proceedings on matters already determined by a competent court.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that house No. 1 Somali Street was the subject matter in both Probate Cause No. 91/60 and Civil Case No. 154/09. Since the issue had already been finally determined in the probate proceedings, Civil Case No. 154/09 was incompetent due to res judicata.
Obiter and limits
- If appellants wish to pursue the matter further, they must do so within the probate proceedings and not by instituting multiple actions.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed
- Proceedings in the District Court and Primary Court are quashed.
- Appellants to bear costs.
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 18 February 1992
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· 18 February 1992
i .. / / / / IN TDE TIIG7..: C0tJ:1T OF TA.NZ \.NIA At].)~l. ES SALAAM ~- .. -Mt·r ·•r, i?C,. ~r.!L ................ ,. ... ~ . .TJ1L'\. H120RO lfiAHAIDI .· ILJiMDI H:!AJUMA W:rDI. a • • • • , , •• , , • • • ••• , •••• B ~SPOlJDUTTS-. £.1LkJ.......H_G_ The coro.'1..iot il1 this onso e0&10crnod house No. 1 :: 1r.uw.i S·ii:rcct Iv. :iinkoo, Dn;i; cs Sal.a.an. In P.rol)atc Cause No. 91 of ·J9GQ of lCariolcoo P:c-i,.1axy Couxt,Dar os Sru.rl.a.-:i, Kazi Kar.1bi appliecl to- he cppointcd. adillinistrator o:Z ·l.ho csto:to of bis late father, :Ka!nbi Knr.1:J1., ,,;.1d that cstato om-;1ptisccl, ar.10ncst otllCJ: t:.,i11cs, foU:T houses, incJ.nclii.1;1 house . . No. I Sor.cli $-l;roo-'li, Knri&coo. Ee was duly appointcLl. · act,1i.11irr~:i:ator. Soi,1d.101r I houcvcr, iJi; appccJ.J:s dccen.secl Kai,1bi K£u-,11Ji 1s l'!:ilClc (J~-:,a M·toro, tiTGli appellant herein) and sister (Kho..c.tija I~i'!~.Ji, SOOO.ild appollroY~) were dissa.tisi'iccl Wi-'fo the appoint,,1cn-L ~:icy con1'..1oncccl a series of couxt n.c·i.:i.ons Jlio rccovc:r house l'fo~ 1 Sx:nli Street, Karia~:.:oo (Sec cc;. the Ruli:.1.; of Dol1D,ti, J. in .lt2.J.I.fi:.ijn. l(am~ (.2).•J~1 kt'~.o.9 ~So Kazi _w?.i. (2) 1;\n.jumo. ICqmbi.L3)_1~·t2:_3l~ (nc) Civ. ·Caso Ho. 263 of 19G7(t,r..lcyortcd). Another of Sl".O~:.. actions iJ3 the prose1r~ on.so which ,¥DB o:i:ic~irn:il].y filed at the P.ri;::ir.:i:3, Cou:rt Kaziakoo as Civil
CMG No. 154/09 involving tho sati1e l.ibt..1.SO am1 tho same par-tics al3 in (TIC) Civ. C~o No. 263/G7. At Jli!ic 00;,nc.tceaont of tlic llcaJ:inJ of this appeal, o:rie;:i.11ati11l5 from ~iclwo Pr:iaar;· Coux-'i; Civil Caso No. 154/G9, :M:r. Ftlr2.::nsu:.1Gula, learned COl1,11sol to::c tho responc.lcn:i;a suh:ri. ttcd by· w~r ot a p:rcliraina.ry point of otjCQ:tion that the sui·t, No. 154/G9, is res ju..dioa:tr,, a13 the raatto:r:a ~1 c.1.isputc 'between •~ic parties hod been clo·i:;01:;,ri.norl on in Pro;).i.:i;o Cause No. 91/Qo (supra) at Jfurinkoo. P:ri;·.1a.rz; Court~ Mr. ll:l-M..'\m',lrJ, for tp.c oppcllmrts, oontcndocl in his ,aitto;.1 su1x1issio1~ 1 w!iioh. I c'!J.r·cc·tccl,. that what w~ decll-'<l- with in P.ro~ato Cro,~sc 91/':JJ w~ . diff crcnt f'lto;.1 ifan:~- WclS dealt wit:.: ii.1 Civil Cnsc No. 154/09 both of Xb:riolroo Pri:mr.;: Court-. \ 2 In paxticulc1!' he oontcndcd thn.t houso lfo. 1 Som. \li St:rod; uas not a subject mc,li·~or of tho procccclincs in Probate Cc:, l.Sc No. 91/Go. Wi ·hl1 :i:c:.~i)eo·i;, _upon pe:pusil'~G ·cl10 j 1:oceedirtc, in 1Joth Pxo 1)atc Cause No. 91/'<lO nncl CiVil Case Ho~ 15,._/09, house: No.1 So,.1ali Street WM a s~1)joct r;1attcr of -the prc ·.:ooclincs· L bo-'ch the oases,. As the ;,1n;b·~cr: o.Z -'i;i10 house Im.cl 1)con fi~ r,J.ly ·c1ctor;:::inccl on in Probate . it Cause Uo, 91/Co, frM res ju5-~oa~ w\cn prooccC:!1;;_1.[:,"'S in
rcsi,cot of it were il1.S-'citu:i;ocl Q.{Sclin in Civil. Cnso i(o. 154/39~ ~10 P:dr.rnry CoUl't wr.s .t::c:r-oforc wroni; in cn~i;o:rtainine Civil Case Ho. 1511/09, I n,eroc ui·t.: 1''h'. l.Vfl·rakasU?l@lla t:_10J:cforo that tho pr,:scn-t proooodings arc incor.1potc11t as they involve a matter which had ttl.:r-c:l.l.tr 1)0011 dctori.1il1ecl on. If tiJ.e appellants 1-Tish to porst:,. tl.1c ::10,·i;-'~cr· ru.zy- fu,rthcr, ~.:.c~- should be doin{:,· so nithin the proccodin.c}! i~1 P-.l'obatc Cause No~ )1 /fb ·ox Kariakoo P.d.::1DJ:y Court, and not bir it'2;J ·ox· ins ti tutin.'.:; a mil tiplici ty of 0th.er actions. The appctl pr-cfe:rrcd by the appollD.,j,1fo to this court is for the above :rcnsons clisi:.ti.Ssl'cl /j)rococdincs of t'.--.c ;·.:n:t-tcr in ·with cos·~s_ aru.:./kic District Cou:i.~·~ and in the Primary Oour·l; a:rc quash.eel.. 11'1 tf/;c~ (E __ · L~ A. A•.. ~ ...dJ.mO
JUDGZ •u t 1...tff't. ,· h DAR ES SALA.lil I Fo.r rospo~1cl.a;r~ ':"' 1'.firnl;:aslll'lgula. Ruline dolivCJ:cd.
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.