Matson Yohana Sanga vs Yohana Mtambili Sanga

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IRINGA SUB REGISTRY) AT IRINGA CIVIL CASE NO. 21846 OF 2024 MATSON YOHANA SAN GA .............. PLAINTIFF VERSUS YOHANA MTAMBILI SAN GA .......................................... DEFENDANT RULING 21st Jan. & 271' Feb. 2025 D.B. NDUNGURU, J: This is a ruling based on a preliminary objection raised by the defendant on the competency of this suit. The objection is that the suit is unmaintainable as the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The plaintiff has sued the defendant for malicious prosecution. According to the plaint, the defendant maliciously reported the defendant to the police. This act to the detainment of the plaintiff at Madaba Police Station and Njombe Police Station. The plaintiff was then arraigned and charged in court for contempt of court. However, he was acquitted. The plaintiff averred that this lowered his dignity. The plaintiff claims against the defendant, general damages not less than Tshs. 400,000,000/=, costs of the suit and any other reliefs this court deems fit to grant. i The preliminary objection was argued by way of filing written submissions. The plaintiff had no legal representation whereas the defendant is represented by Mr. Innocent Kibadu, learned counsel. In supporting the preliminary objection, the defendant's counsel argued that this suit is based on common law torts which the court of first instance ought to be the Resident Magistrate's Court or the District Court and not the High Court as in the present case- To support his argument that the suit is based on common law torts, he cited the case of Flowin Haule & Another v. Fa raja Ngonyani, Civil Appeal No. 14215/2024 [2024] TZHC 8215. He argued further that there is no paragraph in the plaint that has stated the specific damages claimed by the plaintiff so as to determine court's pecuniary jurisdiction. He added that the plaintiff has only stated in his reply to Written Statement of Defence that this court is clothed with jurisdiction based on section 7(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, [Cap. 33 R.E 2019] and section 40(2)(b) of the Magistrate's Courts Act, [Cap. 11 R.E 2019]. In his view, the cited provisions are irrelevant in the present case. He contended that pecuniary jurisdiction can only be determined by specific damages and not general damages. To cement his contention, he cited the case of Tanzania China Friendship Textile Company v. Our 2 Lady of Usambara Sisters [2006] TLR 70. He contended further that it is trite law that suits ought to be instituted in the lowest court as per section 13 of the CPC and Tanzania Breweries Limited v. Antony Nyingi (2016) TLR 99. In his view, the lowest court to adjudicate tort cases in the judicial hierarchy is the Resident Magistrate's Court and the District Court. He, thus, urged the court to strike out the suit with costs. On his part, the plaintiff strongly resisted the preliminary objection. He submitted that this court is clothed with jurisdiction by virtue of sections 40(2)(b) of the MCA and 7(1) and (2) of the CPC. He submitted further that according to his plaint, he claims Tshs. 400,000,000/= as general damages which is above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. Therefore, in his view, this court has jurisdiction to entertain his claim. He distinguished the Flowin Haule & Another case cited by the defendant's counsel with this suit as in the cited case the claim was for Tshs. 200,000,000/= and the cause of action was based on injury suffered due to false alarm and finally the court dismissed the cited case due to insufficient evidence and not jurisdiction as in the present case. The defendant further distinguished the Tanzania Breweries Limited case cited by the defendant's counsel with the suit at hand as the з cited case was an application for execution. He, thus, urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection with costs. In rejoinder, the defendant's counsel essentially reiterated his submissions in chief. The issue for my determination at this point is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Based on the parties' pleadings and written submissions, there is no dispute that this suit is based on malicious prosecution. It should be noted that jurisdiction of court is a fundamental principle which cannot be dealt with sparingly. Jurisdiction of any court is a statutory creature mandated under specific legislation. Jurisdiction of the court is determined by three factors. One, the nature of the claim, two, the magnitude of the claim in terms of specific damages and three, competent court in the judicial hierarchy which is the lowest to adjudicate such claim. This was the position in Flowin Haiile & Another case. In the present suit, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for malicious prosecution. In his plaint among the reliefs claimed is general damages not less than Tshs. 400,000,000/=. He submitted in his submissions that this amount was the basis upon which the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court ought to be determined. However, the position of the law has always been that general damages cannot and do not form the 4 basis of determining court's pecuniary jurisdiction. This has been the position maintained in the landmark case of Tanzania-China Friendship Textiles Co. Ltd. Further, looking at the plaintiff's plaint, no amount was specifically pleaded for the malicious prosecution, therefore, one cannot ascertain court's pecuniary jurisdiction. Mindful of the provision of section 13 of the CPC that cases should be filed in the lowest competent court and given the nature of the claim, I am of the opinion that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit. In the upshot, the preliminary objection is meritorious. I uphold it. The suit is struck out with no order as to costs. .B. NDUNGUR JUDGE 27/2/2025 Court: Ruling delivered in the presence of the plaintiff in person and Mr. Innocent Kibadu, learned advocate for the defendant. Sgd. D.B. NDUNGURU JUDGE 27/2/2025 5