19720202 TZHC Mwanza

r IN 1rHL IIIGI-I (OUhT 01. TAIZANIA AT MWANZA Appellate Jurisdiction (PC) CIVIL AFFDL NO. 31 OF 1971 (From the decision of the District Court of Musorna at Musoma in Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1970 - Original Bunda Primary Court Civil Case No. 54 of 1970 - Before P. K. Lunyelele Lsq; District Magistrate). 12 /V MITENGE MAGOtA ..................... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.PFLLANT (Original Lefendant) versus I 'IJ:kGO M.A.HEI"LBA ....................................... .RESPONLE:NT (Original Plaintiff) .J U D G E NE N T. El-Kindy J. The appellant, Mitenge Magoma, was sued, by the responaent, Mago Mahernba, f or unpaid rent. The amount claimeu and awarcted was hs 150/-. This was alleged to be unpaid rent for 6 moiths. The appellant, who was wisuocessfal in his appeal to the District Court, appealed to this court. Both parties were present and argued their cases. The eviLence, which the trial court accepted showed that the appellant was a tenint in the house of the responhent and that it was let to him for Shs. 25/- per month. The appellnt occupied the said house for six months, but he did not pay a sin'le cent. The amount came to 3hs.150/- . The respondent delfianded payment, but the appellant could not. The trial court entered judemnent in favour of the respondent and the appellate District Court u1:held it. In this court, the appeilant contended that the trial court

- Primary Court of Limda - lacked jurisdiction to hear a rent restriction case, and therefore the trial was a nullity and therefore this court should allow this appeal. The respondent did not have any reply to this argument. Section 14 of the Magistrate Court's Act., 1963 Cap.537 confers jurisdietion over certain maGters on Primary Court, but rent matter is not one ofthem.. From Section 2 (1) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1963, Cap. 472, jurisdiction to try cases of this nature, in certain claims, is conferred on "a Court of a Resident Magistrate of competent jurisdiction." I would agree, therefore, the Primary Court lacked jurisdiotion in this case. See also the case of JAYANT D.DESAI V, HASHI VAR3AMA (1967) HCD NO.171. The trial was null and avoid. is set aside. The respondent may proceed against the ,appeLant in a CO sident Magistrate of his area. The appellant is allowed his costs which 1. Delivered on the 2nd day of February, 1972. Z • N • 1-K ady Judge. 2/2/1972.