Mrs Tumaini Mwakatundu vs Jacob Kyejo DC Civil Appeal No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT MBEYA (DC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2004 (Original Kyela District Court Civil Case No. 8 o f 2003) MRS. TUMAIN MWAKATUNDU ....... APPELLANT

VERSUS JACOB KYEJO ..................................... RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT 19/3/ & 14/5/2008 LUKELELWA, J. The appellant Mrs. Tumaini Mwakatundu lost a suit she had filed against the respondent Jacob Kyejo at Kyela District Court. According to her plaint, the appellant is a married woman pursuing some studies with Kyela Commercial College. She was among tenants in the house belonging to the respondent. Sometimes on or about 30th May, 2003, at the time when the appellant’s husband was away in Dar-es- Salaam, the respondent locked the room of the appellant with his personal lock in addition to the appellant’s lock in her absence. When the appellant returned she noticed that the key to the lock of the door of her room was missing from the place where she usually kept it. The appellant reported the incident to the village chairman and to Kyela Police station, and later the matter was referred to Kyela Urban Primary Court where the respondent was ordered to remove the lock. The appellant was then ordered to vacate the suit premises on the same day, and she had to sleep in a guest house for ten days. When the appellant got inside her room she noticed that a sum of shs.68,000/= out of T.shs,8C,000/= for college fees were missing. The appellant gave evidence in court according to her pleadings but did not call Lutufyo Mwakatundu whom she said was her husband and tenant of the respondent. The defence case was led by DW1 Jacob John Mwamalumbili, it

is not clear whether he is the same man as Jacob Kyejo who was the defendant in the case DW2 Alex Allen Mbilinyi, DW3 Michael Mwangosi and DW4 Alii Mwakapeje. DW1 deposed that sometimes on 12/7/2002, he demised a room in his house to one Lutufyo Mwakatundu at unspecified amount o f rent. The said Lutufyo Mwakatundu paid rent up to April 2003, then he disappeared. The appellant who was living in the said room with the said Lutufyo Mwakatundu told the respondent that the latter had gone to Dar-es-Salaam. On 31/5/2003 the respondent decided to put a lock on the door in addition to the lock put by the appellant. On 16/6/2003 the respondent sued the said Lutufyo Mwakatundu for rent in Kyela District Court Civil Case No. 8/2003. DW2 deposed that the appellant lodged at Top Ten Guest House where he was an attendant. He charged the person who went with her shs.4,000/= per room instead of shs.2,000/= for a single room and shs.2,500/= for double room, which he usually charged. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit on the ground that she was not a tenant o f the respondent. The appellant is challenging that judgement, and this time she has enlisted the services of Mr. Mkumbe learned advocate to lodge and argue her appeal. From the proceedings at the lower court there is no dispute that the matter before the District Court basically related to Landlord tenant relations, and

incidents thereto. A preliminary objection to the Jurisdiction of the trial District Court was raised by the respondent in his written statement o f Defence, but the trial court did not determine the preliminary objection. It did not need much thinking and foresight to realize that it was tVi a Land case. Since the cause action had arisen on or about 30 May, 2003, the provisions of The Rent Restriction Act 1984 was applicable in the circumstances. This is because the Land Disputes Court Act, (Act No. 2 o f 2002) had not come into force. It became operational on 1/10/2003. By then, it was the Regional Housing Tribunal which had Jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Under section 12 (a) of the Rent Restriction Act, the tribunal had power to determine whether or not any premises whatsoever were premises to which the Act applied. The tribunal had power under section 12 (l)(s) of the Rent Restriction Act to exercise jurisdiction in all Civil matters on questions arising out of the Act. It follows therefore that Kyela District had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Without much ado, I hereby quash the proceedings of the said Kyela District Court, which I declare to be null and void. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Order accordingly.

JUDGE 14/5/2008