19930830 TZCA Mwanza

( tf IlJ TITG C00.i T OF AJ?PiTuUi OF TJJJZJNIA AT IifrilJTZA KIS/J~~-L J.;~. 9 r-mz:~V.:i.S 9 J.L.. 9 Jmd MFJu,Ik".. 2 J_~Ae) '•. CIVIL J..1-''P::.GJ:;L IW. 43 OP 1992 , • • • • • .'\.TPJ;LLAl~T J.tND SAIDJ':.. ~lDTI..:J.ifYIKA. • • 0 (A~):f)08.l from the ])ecisj_on of the • lligh C('lurt "f T2.11~D.lll£\ at Hwanza) dccted the 22nd dr,y of Ma.:rnh, 1990 in (PC) Civil Appeal No. 207.of 1990 JtIDGEM]JNT OF TIIB C mn T The appellant, Tiassani ITarnsi, and the respondent, Saida :.~l.1.ii1i:',11;y-ika, were rne,;c:c·ied in 1965 in 111-r:.:nza and lived happily up to ])eceE1her, 1904 uhen me, t1,imoni&.l fxiction set" in. The apl)ello.nt started ru:iorous relc1tions with another woiaan and later claimed that he 1,r~,s the mmer of their mat:rimoni.cl l"one on Plot lifo. 16 I3lock P, I~ranza Idunicipnli "t3°.. ,. As they fciled to resolve their differences the respondent filed a suit - :Mvrc:-,.nza Urban Prir.1ary Court Civil Case Ifoo 90/88 against the appellant claiming inte:;..' alia tl'1at she was the owner •f . the matrimoni2.l home and prayed tho.,t the appellant be OJ.'dei~ed to su:c-render to he:..' the certif ic,,te of right of occupancy over the said plot. 2 Judgement wc,s entered in he:c f2,vour o Dissatisfied with the decision of the PrimG.ry Court the a:p:pellant a:ppec,J.ed to the district court l)ut he lost. Still disscctisfied he a;ppeaJ.ed to the High Court. ITe again lost the ap~eaJ.., In anotl1er attempt the ap1J0llc.U1t applied to the Iligh C()UI'i; 11 for leaven to appco,l to this Court against the decision of the High Court., The applica.tion was refused. In his rulirie:; Sekule, J.. wrongly referred to the appella.n-t 1 s ap:9lication to the 11igh Goud c,s "an a11:plicdion for leave to ·aweaJ. to the Crrurt of JJ.l)yet1l 11 instead of z-eferring to the application as o,IJi)lict1.,tio11 fo:c a ce1·tificate that· a _point of law is involved., :n~wever al though the applicc:.tion was 1v7'ongl;y- referred to as an application for lec,ve, the High Court's order was right ns it t2Jlced of there being no l)O.ints of law involved when he refused the .. , ., , application. After the Iligh Cimrt I s 1~efus::::.l the applicant filed notice 1,ef r.1otion seekin& 11 to i:1ove :the Court/Judge . ._f the Court for an order that leave to appeal to the Court be g-ranted". .... The ap-_plication came before a single judge, (Ramad.li;::.ni, J.A.) for determinati('ln 'and after hearing botl1 p::i.rties the leai~ed judge said in his o:.ill:O:.~ inter 11This is an ap:plic,:.tion fnr leave to appeal te the Court of .1.\p·2eol oi'ter -the same had been :refused by the Iligh Court of Tanzania (Selrule, .J •) ., • • I nin of -the opinion -thai; the:re is 2. point of law involved., .And thai; is· t:J2tg has a Prii;1o.,ry C01.u·t ju:risdiction to dete1'raine 01merFJ:1ii1 of c..11 immovable lli'Oyert-J held m1.de:e cs right of occu1x1.11c;y- tZJ.'Gnted uncler thE:i Lc.nd 01.'dinance ( C2,p., 113) in view ,..f the proviso to section 63~1) of the 1"1agist:cntes 1 Col.,lri;s Aci;J 1984• Leave is c;ro..nted to npi'lecl to the Couri; of Appeal." 3 The law 1'0GGXdinj appe2,ls to this Court from a decision ar o:rder of the High Court in a mnttei· originating from a pxima.ry court is to be :fotmd tmcler section 5(2)(c) ;~:f the Appellate Jm•isdictien .Act, 1979 which sv.ysg lfo o.,:)peal shall lie J,gainst c.J.TI;jT decision o:r 11 order of the High Cov.:rt in any proceedings under Head ( c) of Pl".rt Ill of the Ma.gistl·ates 1 Cou:rts Act, 1963, Unless the IIigh Court certi:fies that a point of law is involved- iri the. decision or o:;::der 11 - (Emphasis suv2lied). · · It is cr;ysk.1 cleu.r f:rom the wOJ:ding of the section that the question whether or not a point of law is involved in the decision o:r crder sought to be api:>ealed ag2inst is the responsibility of the High Court o Tl1e Cov;:-t of Appeo.l lu...s no jurisdiction to certify a point of law to itself. If the appellant wns aggrieved by the order of !Jekule, J., as indet.:,d l1e was y the onl3r course f~r him to take was to av-2.ea.J. against t}1c,t o~i:der. Ue would c-J.so like to mention that the .terminology "leave to ap-_peal 11 is only aJ:)plica1Jle tmder section 5 ( 1) ( c) of the Appellate Ju.:.:-isdiction· .Act in H",tters arising from district courts and matters n'.rising fI'om the Eigb Court not falling under sect;i.on 5 (1) (a) (i) fo (:L:x:)., ID1ere mtters arise from :primcry courts the terminology is a;J?plication 11 :fm.• a certificate'' under section 5 (2) ( c) as cJ.l•er.dy mentioned aboveo .As the le2;1."'rl.ed single judge hnd no jurisdiction to ente1. ta.in 0 the applic&tion be.fore him the decision w2,,s null and void; and therefore the:;.•e is no a:p11ed 1)efoxe this Cov.:ct. 1-Te accordingly strike out the c..i:r_peal as being incornpete;.'lt with costso . :~o Ilo l{ISl~G.A. JUSTICE OF JJ:"IBliL 4 1r. s o :Mim1.i.v ~iS ; J JTJSTICE 'OF .APPEAL L. M.. MF.A.LILA JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify tho.. t this is a true COIJ;i, of the original.