Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

monica nkoma another vs emmanuel kenneth mbyela another 2023 tzhc 23093 23 november 2023

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Issues of locus standi and jurisdiction were raised and considered by the High Court and are points of law suitable for certification to the Court of Appeal.

Court disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Certificate on two points of law issued for determination by the Court of Appeal: (1) Whether parties to this case at appeal levels were proper; (2) Whether the first appellate court had jurisdiction.
  • No order as to costs; costs to be in the course of the intended appeal.

02

Material facts

Parties

Monica Nkoma

Applicant Counsel: Jerome Msemwa

Neema Mbeyela

Applicant Counsel: Jerome Msemwa

Emmanuel Kenneth Mbeyela

Respondent Counsel: Marco Kisakaii

Curthbert Kenneth Mbeyela

Respondent Counsel: Marco Kisakaii

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Certificate on Point of Law

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that the first appellate court wrongly entertained jointly Probate Appeal No. 8/2019 and Civil Appeal No. 8/2020, that the appeal to the High Court was filed by improper parties, that the High Court erred in holding that issues of time limitation were matters of fact, that the respondents were time barred when they filed Probate and Administration Cause No. 19/2019, and that the Resident Magistrates' Court of Njombe had no jurisdiction to entertain Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020.
Respondent
The application was unopposed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Mohamed Mohamed and Another v. Omari Khatib, Civil Appeal No. 68/2011 (Court of Appeal, unreported)

    A point of law for certification includes novel points, issues not previously pronounced by the Court, significant issues going to the root of the decision, or issues involving jurisdiction or misinterpretation of law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Issues of locus standi and jurisdiction were raised and considered by the High Court and are points of law suitable for certification to the Court of Appeal.

Obiter and limits

  • Matters relating to the propriety of filing Probate Appeal No. 8/2019 and Civil Appeal No. 8/2020 and time limitation were not raised in the High Court and cannot be certified as points of law.

Court disposition

Application granted

  • Certificate on two points of law issued for determination by the Court of Appeal: (1) Whether parties to this case at appeal levels were proper; (2) Whether the first appellate court had jurisdiction.
  • No order as to costs; costs to be in the course of the intended appeal.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 23 November 2023

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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 23 November 2023

monica nkoma another vs emmanuel kenneth mbyela another 2023 tzhc 23093 23 november 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IRINGA SUB REGISTRY)

AT IRINGA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2023 (Arising from CiviiAppeal No. 08 o f2022 o f the High Courtof Tanzania atlringa before Hon. S.M. Kalunde, J. arising from CivilAppeal No, 8/2020 o f the Resident Magistrate Court o f Njombe at Njombe before Hon. HA. Makube, SRM. Original Probate and Admistration Cause No. 19/1992 o f the Primary Court o f Njombe District at Njombe Urban before HON. B.H. Mwangi, RM) MONICA NKOMA ......... ................................... 1st APPLICANT NEEMA MBEYELA ............ ............................ . 2nd APPLICANT

VERSUS EMMANUEL KENETH MBEYELA., 1st RESPONDENT CURTHBERT KENETH MBEYELA 2nd RESPONDENT

RULING 2TJ& 23d November, 2023 I.C. MUGETA, 3: This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of this court and a certificate on a point of law. The application is made under section 5(l)(c) and 2(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 45(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules. To be specific the prayer reads: "This Honourable court may be pleased to grant leave to the Court o f Appeal o f Tanzania against the Page 1 of 4 decision o f the High Court o f Tanzania at Iringa District Registry in Civil Appeal No. 8 o f 2022 which was delivered (fh October, 2023 by Hon. S.M. Kaiunde, J. and subsequently issue certificate on point o f law for determination in the Court o f Appeal as required by the law". This is an omnibus prayer because one cannot apply for leave and certificate on a point law at the same time. However, as this case originated in Primary Court, it is my view the correct application is on a certificate on a point of law in terms of section 5(2)(c) of the Appellate jurisdiction Act. This is what I am going to deliberate on. The reasons for the application are stated at paragraph 14(a) - (f) of the affidavit supporting the application sworn jointly by the applicants. They include the complaints that the first appellate court wrongly entertained jointly Probate Appeal No. 8/2019 and Civil Appeal No. 8/2020

both originating from Probate and Administration Cause No. 19/1992, that the appeal to this court was filed by improper parties, that this court erred to hold that issues of time limitation raised by the applicants were matters of facts, that the respondents were time barred when they filed Probate and Administration Cause No. 19/2019 at Njombe Urban Primary Court and that Page 2 of 4 the Resident Magistrates' Court of Njombe had no jurisdiction to entertain Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2020. In the case of Mohamed Mohamed and Another v. Omari Khatib, Civil Appeal No. 68/2011, Court of Appeal(unreported) the Court stated what constitutes a point of law: "... for instance, where there is a novel point, where the issue raised is unprecedented, where the point sought to be certified has not been pronounced by the Court before and is significant and goes to the root o f the decision, where the issue at stake involves jurisdiction where the court(s) below misinterpreted the law etc... Matters relating to the propriety of filing Probate Appeal No. 8/2019 and Civil Appeal No. 8/2020 and time limitation were not raised in this court. They cannot be certified as point of law to the Court of Appeal. Issues which were raised and considered by this court related to locus standi and jurisdiction of the first appellate. These are points of law. Issue of focus standi go to the root of the decision

while matters of jurisdiction are fundamental to justice. Accordingly I certify for determination by the Court of Appeal two points: 1). Whetherparties to this case at appeal levels were proper. Page 3 of 4 2). Whether the first appellate court hadjurisdiction. The application is granted without orders as to costs which shall be in the course of the intended appeal. Court: Ruling delivered in chambers in the presence of the Jerome Msemwa, learned advocate for the 1st and 2nd applicants, Marco Kisakaii, learned advocate for the respondent and applicants and respondents are absent. Sgd. I.C MUGETA

JUDGE 23/ 11/2023 Page 4 of 4

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Mohamed Mohamed and Another v. Omari Khatib, Civil Appeal No. 68/2011 (Court of Appeal, unreported)

Case cited

Section 5(1)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 5(2)(c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rule 45(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.