mussa rajabu others vs allance francaise 2003 tzhc 51 1 december 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL REVISION NO. 59 OF 2003 ^MUSSA RAJABU & 3 OTHERS.......APPLICANt&ETITIONERS VERSUS M/S ALLIANCE FRANCAISE................................. RESPONDENT RULING ORIYO. J.: These are revisional proceedings which were initiated by the trial court, the resident magistrate’s court at Kisutu; by its order dated 19 February, 2003. Employment Cause No.362 of 1997 was filed at the Resident Magistrate’s Court of Dar es Salaam at Kisutu. Initially, the matter was presided over by resident magistrates. Mediation was unsuccessful and the trial was taken over by a district magistrate, Kisseto, SDM. Apparently, only one witness testified for the complainants and the defendant did not testify in support of its case for reasons not quite clear on record. Anyway, after several adjournments, the trial magistrate fixed the case for judgment on 19 February, 2002. The judgment was then adjourned on a number of occasions and on 4 June, 2002 it was adjourned for the 13th time. Eventually, it was delivered in favour of the complainants on 11 June, 2002. 1 J I In the course o f handling subsequent applications for orders, the learned Mbilinyi, RM, ordered that the matter be referred to this court to cure an error apparent on record in that the case was tried by and the judgment was delivered by a court without jurisdiction. SECTION 6(1) OF THE MAGISTRATE’S COURTS ACT, 1984, provides as hereunder:- “6. - (1) Subject to the provisions o f Section 7, a magistrate’s court f shall be duly constituted when held by a jin g le Magistrate, being - (a) in the case of a primary court, a primary court magistrate; (b) in the case of a district court, a district or a resident magistrate; (c) in the case of a court of a resident magistrate, a resident magistrate” , [underlining provided] The employment cause was filed in a court of a resident magistrate and ought to have been presided over by a resident magistrate. It was an error for Kisseto, who was a district magistrate, to try the case in a court of a resident magistrate. As correctly decided by the learned Mbilinyi, RM, that was in contravention of the clear, mandatory provisions of Section 6(1), Magistrates Courts Act. The trial and the attendant judgment and orders by Kisseto, SDM, are a nullity. 2 3