20180309 TZHC Mwanza

'"' Page 1 of 4 "1I ; I • 'l \ I IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MWANZA REGISTRY) ATMWANZA HC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2017 {Arising from the decision of the Resident Magistrate Court of Mwanza in Civil Case No. 76/2017 as perHon. Chftep~BJ KING CORPORATION LIMITED ............................ APPELLANT VERSUS GEORGIA SIMON KAIZA ............................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT BEFORE: MAIGE, J. This· an appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of resident magistrate of Mwanza ("the trial court"), awarding the respondent herein TZS 10,000,000 / as an outstanding loan amount arising from the contract between him and the appellant as well as punitive damage at the rate of TZS 2,000,000 / =. The main question. raised in the appeal is on the ·pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the -matter. At the trial . . court, the issue was raised but the trial magistrate dismissed it on account · .~ that the primary court has not jurisdiction to entertain a suit on a civil loan involving a company. In his submissions in respect of the appeal, Mr. Adam Robert who represented the appellant was of the contention that, the subject matter of the dispute at the trial court being TZS 10,000,000/=, it was well within the jurisdiction of the primary court and not the court of resident magistrate court. The counsel placed reliance on the provision of section 18 (1) of the . . Magistrate Court Act, Cap.11, R.E., 2002 as amended by Act No. 3 of 2016 which came into operation on 07.07.2016. He urged the Court therefore, to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and quash all the pro.ceedings thereof with costs. The respondent who appeared in person had no useful submissions on this point apart frorn blaming the appellant for delaying the matter. The issue at hand, in my view, is very simple which need not consume much of my time. According to the record, the plaint was filed on 6.9.2016. The amendment of the Magistrate Court which increased the pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of actions for recovery of civil debt arising from contract from TZS 3;000,000/ = to TZ.S 30,000,000/=, came into operation ·on · . . 7/7/2016. In this matter, the dispute arpse from a loan contract between the .., Page 3 of 4 parties herein. Obviously, it was a dispute for recovery of civil debt arising from a contract within the meaning of section 18 (1) of the MCA. The argument by the trial ·magistrate that the jurisdiction does not extend where the dispute involves a company is a serious misconception of the law, if I can say. The provision of section 18 ( 1) of the MCA is very clear and it does not need interpretation nor interpolation. In my opinion therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the s_uit. The appeal shall thus succeed in respect to the issue of jurisdiction and it is so allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside and the proceedings thereof quashed. The respondent shall pay the costs of prosecuting the appeal. It is so ordered. Right to appeal duly explained I.MAIGE JUDGE