Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

20100607 TZHC Dar es Salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The trial court, having found it lacked jurisdiction over customs matters, should have struck out the suit rather than dismissing it.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The suit is to be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Peter K. Mchowera

Appellant Counsel: Mr. Semgalawe

Tanzania Revenue Authority

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit instead of striking it out for want of jurisdiction

Party arguments

Applicant
The trial magistrate erred in law by dismissing the suit after finding lack of jurisdiction; the proper procedure under Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Civil Procedure Code is to reject the plaint and strike out the suit.
Respondent
No reply submissions were filed by the respondent.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Civil Procedure Code

    Where a court finds it lacks jurisdiction, the proper order is to strike out the suit, not dismiss it.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The trial court, having found it lacked jurisdiction over customs matters, should have struck out the suit rather than dismissing it.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The suit is to be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 7 June 2010

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· 7 June 2010

20100607 TZHC Dar es Salaam

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2008 ) (Originating from the decision of the RMS court at Kisutu in Civil Case No. 134 of 2002) PETER K. MCHOWERA ..-.-................ APPELLANT .- .,, I VERSUS ! TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY ...... RESPONDENT Date of last Order : 21/5/2010 . ! Date of Judgment : 7/6/2010 JUDGMENT -I Shangwa, J. In this case, the Appellant was aggrieved by the Ruling of Fimbo, RM delivered on· 21/5/2008 in Civil Case No. 134 2 of 2002. He has appealed to this court against that Ruling. His appeal is based on the following ground:- " That the trial Resident Magistrate erred in law in dismissing the suit. After making a finding that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the suit, the trial magistrate ought to have struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction. " On 29/10/2010, I ordered that the Appeal should be argued by way of written submissions. Whereas counsel for the Appellant filed his written submissions, counsel for the Respondent did not file any reply. Learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Semgalawe contended that under 0. VII r. ii ( c) of the Civil Procedure Code, where the suit is barred by any law, the plaint ha~ to 3 be rejected or struck off. He submitted that since the plaint was barred by the laws governing customs matters, it would have been proper for the trial court to reject it and strike out the matter instead of dismissing

it. Personally, I agree with the submission made by counsel for the Appellant that after finding that the case was improperly before the court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction to try it as it involved customs matters, the proper action to take was to reject the plaint and strike out the suit but not to dismiss it. For this reason, I hereby allow this appeal but each party should bear its ovvn costs. It is so ordered.

JUDGE 7/6/2010 4 Delivered in open court this 7 th day of June, 2010 in the presence of Mr. Semgalawe, Advocate and -in the absence of the Respondent.

JUDGE 7/6/2010

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.

Civil Procedure Code, Order VII Rule 11(c)

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.