rashid salum mintanga others vs lumeme rajabu mabila 2019 tzhclandd 42 30 september 2019
The amendment to the Land Courts Disputes Act removed the requirement for leave to appeal, and as procedural amendments operate retrospectively, the application for leave is now redundant and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- rashid salum mintanga others vs lumeme rajabu mabila 2019 tzhclandd 42 30 september 2019
- Parties
- Applicant: Rashid Salum Mintanga; Applicant: Rimina Auction Mart & Co Ltd; Applicant: Bahdur Dewji & Dewlo; Respondent: Lumeme Rajabu Mabila
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Misc Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application struck out
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Retrospective Application of Procedural Law, Jurisdiction
- 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
Rashid Salum Mintanga
Applicant
Rimina Auction Mart & Co Ltd
Applicant
Bahdur Dewji & Dewlo
Applicant
Lumeme Rajabu Mabila
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Misc Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal is required following the amendment to the Land Courts Disputes Act
- 2 Whether the application for leave is maintainable after the amendment
Ratio Decidendi
The amendment to the Land Courts Disputes Act removed the requirement for leave to appeal, and as procedural amendments operate retrospectively, the application for leave is now redundant and the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
Court Disposition
Application struck out
Orders
- Application struck out without order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 336 OF 2018 (Arising from High Court Land Case No. 83 o f 2013) RASHID SALUM MINTANGA..... ............ ..Ist APPLICANT RIMINA AUCTION MART & CO LTD .... ....2nd APPLICANT BAHDUR DEWJI & DEWLO......................3rd APPLICANT VERSUS LUMEME RAJABU MABILA .........................RESPONDENT RULING BEFORE: MAIGE, J In this application, the applicants are being represented by Mr. Mtinginjola, learned advocate and the respondent Mr. Daibu Kambo, learned advocate. In pursuit of the Court order, they have filed written submissions for and against the application. I have appropriately considered the same. The application at hand is for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court on trial. It is made under section 47(1) of the Land Courts Disputes Act, (Act No. 2 of 2002). The application, it would appear, was lodged on 6th June 2018. Perhaps, at the time of the lodging of the application or soon before, leave to appeal was a precondition for an appeal against a decision of the High Court on trial. The position has however now changed. For, in accordance with the amendment brought by Act No. 8 of 2018, an appeal against such decision is automatic and does not require leave. The amendment under discuss affects procedural aspect of the law and not substantive one. In view of the authority in BENBROS MOTORS TANGANYIKA LTD VS. PATEL (1968) E.A.247 an amendment on procedural rule operates retrospectively. The application at hand has thus been overtaken by event and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It is accordingly struck out without an order as to costs. It is so ordered. I.MAIGE JUDGE 2 30/ 09/2019 Coram: Hon. S. R. Ding'ohi, DR For 1st Applicant: ^ For 2nd Applicant: For Respondent: J Absent RMA: Bukuku COURT: Ruling delivered this 30th day of September, 2019. S. R. Ding'ohi DEPUTY REGISTRAR 30/ 09/2019