19941108 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- Citation
- 19941108 TZHC Dar es Salaam 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 8 November 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 8 November 1994
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Primary Court of Ilala lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the land in dispute was registered, rendering all proceedings and judgments of the lower courts nullities.
Court disposition
appeal struck out for incompetence
Orders
- All orders of the lower courts set aside
- No order as to costs
- Status quo to be maintained until proper action is taken
02
Material facts
Parties
W.O. Sijaona
Appellant Counsel: Mr. LuogaShomari Salum
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection on Jurisdiction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Primary Court had jurisdiction to hear a dispute over registered land
- 02
Whether proceedings and judgments of lower courts were nullities for lack of jurisdiction
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant possessed a title deed conferring right to occupy the disputed land, and the Primary Court lacked jurisdiction over registered land matters under section 18(1)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Courts Act.
- Respondent
- The respondent produced a letter of offer regarding the same property, but did not challenge the registration evidence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 18(1)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Courts Act, Cap 11
Primary Courts have no jurisdiction in proceedings affecting title to or interest in land registered under the Land Registration Ordinance.
- 02
General legal principle; applied in judgment
Proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are nullities.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Primary Court of Ilala lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the land in dispute was registered, rendering all proceedings and judgments of the lower courts nullities.
Obiter and limits
- Status quo to be maintained until an appropriate action is taken by the party claiming ownership or occupation of the suit land.
Court disposition
appeal struck out for incompetence
- All orders of the lower courts set aside
- No order as to costs
- Status quo to be maintained until proper action is taken
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 8 November 1994
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.
TZHC
Judgment· 8 November 1994
·····- ·-- -... ~ ......... ~ U" LI 11 G, This niJj.ng has ate ·;n ·d :from a preliminary point of law raised by Mr, Iuoga., Lea.med. Coun: a7 -..:-. ·.t; ~ha,+. ,-.1-f;h<'Ugh l...,_ :.-~=-.1-:.:-:..=.-~-+,0c_ the appellant at t:b.o Dhrt cl.et Cou:rt of Ilala it )1ad not come to his (LJ.ogal-13) lmowledge that the a:ppcl: ant l)OSD8r,ooc~ a title de0d. conferring to him the right to occupy t~w diop-•;.ted land. r.rhat as tho matter \re:rc insti tu.too in ~ho P,:'ima.ry Oourt of Ilalr:, r-J.1i"·. ,~:1.e fact t:12.t the pe.rUo::: novor k:.1ow that a Primary Court has ~10 ju:ciGo.:i.cti 0:1 to >.oar a dispute 011 the :l.. ssuo of o-wncrsl:ip over a. registered la.r.,l as sta.t0c~ w.1fror scci:i.cn 18 - ( 1) ( a) (i) of tho Mag:lstratot s C, 1urts .\c-t, J.9L ·1 2.t is clear t;1at the procoodj.ngs in the Pr.lma.ry Court and oubscqu<i'l:tl~ t~~o 2,:ppo~.:.: to tho dist:ric-t court woro null voi~ The appliceJ.1:f, supported . is obj cctim by sb.ovri.113 to ·t:10 court the or.i.ginal certificato of title as ,:w:i.dci.100.!' a photostatic copy of tho aamo dooument ha'3 beei.1 ti.loc1. with the c..,urt for identification purposor.- Tb.o l:eSpond.cnt Shomari Salum also showo) to t:1c court a lctJGer ·of offer roa:Pocting the ea.mo landed property, tho effect of ·02ese docuuents uas nothing but a positive cmfiJIJ1r.ti.on that th0 .la,;.1<.~ in _-1.i.aputc is a ro[;istoroc~ lan~:- I
hav'O ta.ken advantage ·r,,. olosaly G'J'auino t~1e 1') .~~ht of occum:panoy and certificate of title issued to tho appollc.:!lt EJ.. ie~<J Jot·.°' 1/iboya ana. I am satisfied. that they were issuo~i to ~il in l:;:)l before tho yrcsc.nt suit cG11m~1ced in tho Primary Court cf llala in ~ust; 1992-. Tho 1av, is vcrJ clear on matters rolating to rc.:..iGtorcd land under ·c~J.o k~ffi Rei..:. ~~f:R-.'.iTIC'I ORDI.~,:-,i:J C~ Oa:p 334. Undor tho Magi Jtr.:.1.to's Court ..i.et 7 1~84:J Section ·-n - U) (a)(:i.) oloa1."1y stip.tl.atess "c-.1>••••••• no pr.L:1a:r;r cou:cf; ::.~hall havt> .ju1·· ocliction in cny procood.ings a~·f Jcting the ti tl c to or ClW i..11torost in l ·.ld XQ.:,"1.rrhyr,,..'." •u~c=Lor the tho Land ~k;cistration 0r-~1a11c0'-. I • 2 • · I havo 1-ov.d tho :procc0ru.ngo before thG rnma.ry Court ~.nd district . --------~--coµ~ but. no nl10ro this uncllallengod m,-idenco of rci?-Gt:t'c',tion of the land in disp\lto was cwor mentioned, or referred in a.t1J1way. Elven tllo m~orandum of appeal to tho district court never r,1cntionocl the o:.ir.oolla11t 'a title dcec1 it was discloaod to Mr. luogo. cvon after he had takoo up-.a,p-poal to this court. li.s bot;J. 11a.rtios-l1a.ve t1ocumonts co11fi.xmin6 that t;:10 land. ill dispute is a rogistcrod. l;:,,i.1c1 it ,;ocs without fu:.ct'.~cr proof, unless otl~.c:rnise stated, that tho :primar3r court of Ilala 1:.r,.J. no
ju.:::isdicticn to entertain the suit. The suit boforo 1 t was thoroforn. incorapotou:t for lack of jurisdiction. The ·prooeedil1.3s a.ncl jwlgom0nt wore tllorof ore a nullity, The 0011sequon.t appeal to tho Di:;;trl.ot_ Court wae:: also L1comJ1ctcnt, honco tho r.1.ccision or jud.gomont of that firrJt appella.to c,)urt _was alsc 2. nullity• 41,tq.~f,it.: follows that th0 appeal to this court is .incompoto11t a.1~1 is acco:roingly atruclc out. ·JJ.l the ord.orca of -'Gl10 lower courts a:ro accoJ..'0.i.n~y eot asiclo. A. C. tiilJl;Ii., JU.l)G:i.J 0.1.IDI1.ta J.lo order as to. costs. The pe,:rt.ios $t.a.t.us quo to bo maJltained uritil a ap:propr.i.ato action is tako.'l by -tllo party ldlo boliovos that ho is the lQG'i tir.la;l:.o o-wnor o:c- ooou:pior of tho suit la11d. Delivered at 'Dar es SD.12,ar.io Mro W.O;Si?., for tl:e ap)?ollant, pro:30;.1.t. Shooa.rl Salum, :present in person ( rosponden:G}; ·~. c. v~ JuJ)CrLJ .'..t Dar es Sala.om,1 Date& 8/11(192~
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.