rahel kayanda vs sofia byarugaba 2006 tzhc 299 10 february 2006

rahel kayanda vs sofia byarugaba 2006 tzhc 299 10 february 2006

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise proceedings in matters originating from Ward Tribunals under S. 79 of the CPC, 1966 and S. 31(1) of the MCA, Cap. 11, as neither provision applies to such matters. The proper procedure for constitutional challenge was not followed.

Citation
rahel kayanda vs sofia byarugaba 2006 tzhc 299 10 february 2006
Parties
Applicant: Rahel Kayanda; Respondent: Sofia Byarugaba
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Preliminary objections sustained; application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Revision Jurisdiction, Ward Tribunal Appeals, Applicability of Civil Procedure Code, Constitutional Challenge Procedures
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Revision Jurisdiction Ward Tribunal Appeals Applicability of Civil Procedure Code Constitutional Challenge Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rahel Kayanda

Applicant

Sofia Byarugaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to revise proceedings originating from Ward Tribunal under S. 79 of the CPC, 1966 and/or S. 31(1) of the MCA, Cap. 11
  2. 2 Whether S. 20(3) of the Ward Tribunal Act is unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise proceedings in matters originating from Ward Tribunals under S. 79 of the CPC, 1966 and S. 31(1) of the MCA, Cap. 11, as neither provision applies to such matters. The proper procedure for constitutional challenge was not followed.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objections sustained; application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent