omary nassoro mbotto vs abdallah said likupila 1998 tzhc 2011 21 august 1998
The failure of the Primary Court judgment to be signed by the assessors rendered the proceedings and judgment a nullity.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- omary nassoro mbotto vs abdallah said likupila 1998 tzhc 2011 21 august 1998
- Parties
- Appellant: Omary Nassoro Mbotto; Respondent: Abdalla Saidi Likupila
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 21 August 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- proceedings and judgments of lower courts declared a nullity; hearing to start de novo before another magistrate
- Legal Topics
- Land Dispute, Judgment Validity, Primary Court Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Omary Nassoro Mbotto
Appellant
Abdalla Saidi Likupila
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment of the Primary Court was valid without being signed by the assessors as required by law
Ratio Decidendi
The failure of the Primary Court judgment to be signed by the assessors rendered the proceedings and judgment a nullity.
Court Disposition
proceedings and judgments of lower courts declared a nullity; hearing to start de novo before another magistrate
Orders
- Hearing to start de novo before another magistrate
- No fresh filing fees to be paid
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA a t TlAtt ES SALAAM PC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 156/97 (Originating from Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997 of Kibaha District Court and Original Civil Case No. 15/96 of Mkuza Primary Court) OMARY NASSORO MBOTTO................ APPELLANT VERSUS ABDALLA SAID LUOJPILA....................RESPONDENT ■nroflEMENT KAT.F.GEYA. J. The Appellant, Omari Nassoro Mbotto w h o sued the Respondent, Abdallah Saidi Likupila, lost in the Primary Court as well as in the District Court on Appeal. Still dissatisfied he has tried his luck wilh this Court. The claim was for recovery of a piece of land estimated at 30 acres. Although the District Court upheld the judgement of the Primary Court it overlooked one glaring error on the record o f the said Primary Court. At the conclusion of the trial the Magistrate called upon the Assessors to give their opinions which were duly recorded. The Magistrate then proceeded to write a judgement which was not signed by Ihe gentlemen Assessors. Clearly this was a violation of GN No. 2 of 1988, Rule 3 which states, “ 3 (1) Where in any proceedings the Court has heard all the evidence or matters pertaining to the issue to be determined by the Court, the Magistrate shall proceed to consult with the assessors present, with the view of reaching a decision of the Court. (2) If all the Members of the Court agree on one decision the Magistrate shall proceed to record the decision or judgement of the Court which cVmll be. signed bv all the members. (3) For the avoidance o f doubt a M agistrate shall not, in lieu o f or in addition tr> the consultations referred to in sub-rule (1) o f this rule, be entitled to siim up to the other members o f the Court - (em phasis m ine) . For this reason I need not go into the merits of the appeal, for, the judgment which led to the two appeals is a nullity. However inconvenient it may be to the parties, faced with such defect, this Court can do nothing but to declare the lower Court’s proceedings and judgements a nullity as I hereby do. H e a r i n g t o start de novo before another Magistrate. As the Court has a hand in this no filing fees should be paid afresh, and each party is to bear own costs. L.B. KALEGEYA JUDGE