shekha mohamed majid vs wahid mohamed hijaz 2002 tzhc 2024 2 may 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM c iv i l appeal no. 137/2000 SHEKHA MOHAMED M A JID .................... a p p e l m n t VERSUS WAHID MOHAMED HIJAZ -rvr,^ A.............................PJ3SPOMDENT J JJ D G H E N T MURO. J . H ie a p p e l l a n t S h ekh a Moharned Manic 5 rW +• and o r d e r b y Hon <Zh ^ s s a t i s f i e d w ith th e r u li n g r o y Hon. Sh on ga DM i n R .M .*S C o u rt r> „ ^ A d m in is t r a tio n Cause No.• 138 QZ o f 1996 ]^ ha s now a w Q^a l SE 4. P r o b a te ^ 1 : not ~ ~ z - z . one Wahid Ifeha^J ^ * * b" 1 - - requested the t r ia l court to r i, ° 0:ri3:Llla;L cause' ^ho had ^ the late ^ — * a^ministration o f « * estate Mohaffled Majid. She partly dost i n t ^ t ^ Sra“tOCi *° th° £fcekta St “ th at 0£“ ^ hence th is appeal. Before embarking in to the m erits of* s i g n i f i c a n t has been r a is e d by th h ** ^ ° f p r e lin ’ ^ / on the opinion o f t h i s c o ^ t go to *" W ila u t ^ ch » lower court from which this appeal hal ^ — ^ ^ Pr°Ceedin^ ** the aPP°al has originated. I t i s t r i t e la w t h a t f o r an y court- f n i t must be p r e s id e d o n e r b y a p e r s o n w ith GXGrC1SQ lt G ^ ^ i c t i o n p r o p e r ly Who s l t s c o u r t la o k e t J J ~ ^ : 7 T ° nt » « * p erson decides i s a n u l l i t y . M o t i o n wherever ho or she does or " ! “ * * H on.aonsa D.M «*d Adminstration Cause No. U 8/ 56? ° f “ M a t K ls“ ‘ “ d e b a te ®!is is in violation of s«6 (f) f \ which provides as follows:- ° ^ the Maeistrates Court Act I98U ct - CD S u b je c t t o th e p r o v i s io n s o f S ectio n 7 a M agistrate«s C o u rt s h a ll be dUly con stitu te d when h eld by a s in g le m a g istra te , bein g .. -/ 2. - 2 (a) - (b) « £.1 the case o f a c o v M R esident M a g istra te , R esident M agistrate fJ In th is o a s s x the H o n .D istric t * purported to a JurletJictloJi ** ^ ™ 'S — a u t h o r itie s in support o f th i~ Br tto r e are s e v e r a l ( 1969) e . a . 6 i3 ) tho * F° r . in ^ vs V .fiopublic ( 1 991) IU ! 83 J u st to name ^ ° f W iU la ” » d 2 oth ers •Based on th e s e a u t h o r i t i e s , i t i s c l " th fl. o n e r th e m a tte r a t K is u t u RM»S C ou rt D M Sh ° Who P r i d e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d eterm in e th e s u b je c t ^ ^ ^ haVe had d ic t io n to s i t to tho m ' S Court f l)r t ^ XSSUS’ ^ HOt unnecessary to con sider the a e r i t a o - '-h ' ’" <* * C° Urt « * * * « w has done ir. t h i s m atter i s a n u a i i t " ” appeal brioau='= "hehever the » °t o f t h i s a p p e a l. y “ ‘ 1 «e such “ m t y i t 3 0 -e , c tho th e r e fo r e , t h i s court fin d s no J> p ro ceed in gs th a t took p la c e before B a n Z ^ . ^ ^ and A dm in istration Cause No. 138 o f lo o r, “ K l6utu ™ ’ S ' ° ^ + Prooate J -tio s Of the d ^ i t i s oraored “ha 1 h . " * ^ ^ - M a g istra te w ith competent J u r i s t " " ^ b° m oth er % d: M ,I ,M u r o 2~5~2002 JUDGE Coram- M utongi ~ DR/HC F o r tho A p p e lla n t F o r the R espondent / A b s t CC L iv an g a * Ct : The judgement marked read bv F <? rr A P a r t i e s e a ch p a r t y t r o b t a in a 'c o p y o f “ * ‘ * “ Boe o t f t h i s Judgement from th o E e g is fe ty REGISTRAR 02