20070713 TZHC Mwanza

r IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY .. AT MWANZA APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO: 125 OF 2005 · (Arising from Bunda District Court Civil Appeal no: 16/2005 originating from Ikizu Primary Court civil case no,· 88/2004) NG;OMBE KETANDO .................. i••····· .. ··•··•· .... APPELLANT VERSUS MWENYEKITI SERIKALI YA KIJIJI BUKAMA ................... i .. •••• ■■ n••·· RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT 29/3 &13/7/2007 SUMARI, J ,· I ,. The appellant' Ng'ombe Ketando 1s!i appealing. against the decision of Bunda District Court Civil App:eal no: 16/2005. In Ikizu · . i I Primary Court civil case no. 88/2001 respondent (Plaintiff) . . . . j i . unsuccessfully sued the appellant (Defer1ant) for payment of a house rent at tune of 168,000/=. The res~o!ndent was dissatisfied by ' I · the whole judgement and successfully ap~~aled to the District Court . . . I I of Bunda which decision is being complain~d of by the appellant in • this court. ,, The gist of the claims before the tri I court is that it is alleged that appellant sometimes in 1992 togethe with other villagers were 1 ... allowed to build small sheds in the village government land to run their business therein. The agreement reached was to the effect that upon the completion of the said sheds those builds (the Sheds) will• become tenants and will be required to pay house rent after the expiry of 5 years of the usage of the sheds free from paying the rents. It came to the attention of the respondent during his leadership that though there were minutes in regard of those given land to build such sheds, none of them was paying l1ouse rent as required. Respondent therefore called upon tenants to his office to settle the unpaid rents, appellant being among them. Except the appellant all other tenants who had sheds ['vibanda'') from the village government land responded to his call and paid the rent as required. Only the appellant . ' turned into deaf ear • an act which forced the respondent t? institute this case. He therefore instituted this case on 04/10/20tj4 before the Ikizu Primary Court. Ikizu Prima~ Court dismissed the rekpondent's claim and upon . . \ . his dissatisfaction he appealed to Distric~ Court which allowed his appeal. Appellant was dissatisfied, hence t~is appeal. I I I Before this court appellant raised tw9 grounds: ' L That in as much as the disput~ between the parties . I herein involve payment of rer) " the Primary Court ,, of Ikizu had no jurisdiction to hear and determine 2 • · the dispute, and the first Appellate Court should have held so. 2. That, the ·respondent herein had no locus to institute the claim of payment of rent in Ikizu Primary Court As I poihted out this case was instituted in the Primary Court of Ikizu on 04/10/2004. As well pointed out by the appellant in his both grounds of the appeal question of jurisdiction in this case must be determined and ought to have been determined at the earliest stage of the case: That the case is involving payment of rent and not only the rent since appellant is claiming the ownership of .the said land. The matter therefore is involving land dispute. Under the Land Dispute. Courts Act, No. 2 of 2002 which came into operation on 1st October, 2003, all land disputes shall be . ; " ~ . instituted in the court having jurisdiction to d~termine land disputes in a given area. This is as provided for under section 3 (1) of the said ' Act, (supra). Sub- section (2) of section 3 pro:vides for the courts of . l . I jurisdiction under sub- section (1) to include: : ! a) The Village Land Council; ,. i b) The Ward tribunal; c) The District Land and Housing Tri6 nal; · d) The High Court (Land Division); · e) The Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 3 i . . . .. Simllatly under section 4 (1), the Magistrntes' Court established • C • • • ' · under the . Magistrates' . to·urts Act, 1984 have no jurisdiction in any · : .. . . . matter under the Land. Act, 1999 and Village Land Act, 1999. It is therefore· clear that hi this case both lower .courts had no jurisdiction . . . to entertain· the case: The .proceedings of both lower. courts are .. . · ·. -: therefore quashed. fhe appeal is allowed. A party who is interested · to pursue the claim, rnay · do so, in the appropriate court with jl.Jrisdictioh. t rnake no order to cost . . .·. hi~·· •· A.N.M:sumari JUDGE AtMwattza, 13/01/2007. ·. . . . Dellivered thls 13th dayof July, 2007 in the presence: of both parties. _·. ·1 . .I •. .,, .. . .:I ·,' 4