gp rutachubirwa vs alfred makundi another 2006 tzhc 313 31 march 2006

gp rutachubirwa vs alfred makundi another 2006 tzhc 313 31 march 2006

The 1st Respondent could not be held liable for breaches of the lease agreement as he was not a party to it; the RH Tribunal proceedings were vitiated by improper constitution and lack of jurisdiction, justifying quashing and setting aside; a trial de novo cannot be ordered as the relevant tribunals no longer exist.

Citation
gp rutachubirwa vs alfred makundi another 2006 tzhc 313 31 march 2006
Parties
1st Appellant / 2nd Respondent (in Appeal No. 20/2003): G.P. Rutachubirwa; 2nd Appellant / 2nd Respondent (in Appeal No. 16/2003): General Tyre (E.A.) Ltd.; 1st Respondent: Alfred Makundi
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2003 dismissed with costs; Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2003 allowed with costs to the extent that a trial de novo should have been ordered, but cannot be due to repeal of the Act.
Legal Topics
Lease Agreements, Jurisdiction, Time Limitation, Privity of Contract, Eviction, Damages, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Landlord Tenant Employment Civil Procedure Lease Agreements Jurisdiction Time Limitation Privity of Contract Eviction +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.P. Rutachubirwa

1st Appellant / 2nd Respondent (in Appeal No. 20/2003)

General Tyre (E.A.) Ltd.

2nd Appellant / 2nd Respondent (in Appeal No. 16/2003)

Alfred Makundi

1st Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Housing Appeals Tribunal erred in entertaining a time-barred appeal
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Respondent could be held jointly and severally liable for breaches of the lease agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Housing Appeals Tribunal correctly quashed and set aside the RH Tribunal proceedings for lack of jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Respondent could not be held liable for breaches of the lease agreement as he was not a party to it; the RH Tribunal proceedings were vitiated by improper constitution and lack of jurisdiction, justifying quashing and setting aside; a trial de novo cannot be ordered as the relevant tribunals no longer exist.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2003 dismissed with costs; Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2003 allowed with costs to the extent that a trial de novo should have been ordered, but cannot be due to repeal of the Act.

Orders

  • Appeals disposed as above.
  • Parties may institute fresh proceedings in a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, subject to limitation laws.