yahaya said nkoloma vs wikangulu investment co ltd 2006 tzhc 262 20 july 2006
The appeal is incompetent in law because it was filed in the wrong division of the High Court after the repeal of the relevant provision and the coming into force of the Land Disputes Courts Act.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- yahaya said nkoloma vs wikangulu investment co ltd 2006 tzhc 262 20 july 2006
- Parties
- Appellant: Yahaya Said Nkoloma; Respondent: Wikangulu Investment Co. Ltd
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- appeal struck out as incompetent
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Appeals, Repeal of Statute
- 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
Yahaya Said Nkoloma
Appellant
Wikangulu Investment Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal was properly filed before the correct division of the High Court after repeal of S. 43 of the Rent Restriction Act
- 2 Whether the appeal is competent in law under the Land Disputes Courts Act
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is incompetent in law because it was filed in the wrong division of the High Court after the repeal of the relevant provision and the coming into force of the Land Disputes Courts Act.
Court Disposition
appeal struck out as incompetent
Orders
- The appeal is struck out for being incompetent in law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DOPOMA DC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2005 (MISC. APPLICATION NO, 5 OF 2005 ORIGINAL APPLICTION NO. 2/2002 OF DODOMA HOUSING TRIBUNAL AT DODOMA) YAHAYA SAID NKOLOMA ........................ APPELLANT Versus WIKANGULU INVESTMENT CO. LTD......... RESPONDENT 09.06.2006 & 20.07.2006 RULING/ORDER MASANCHE, J. Mr. Nyabiri, learned advocate for the respondents, has filed a preliminary objection in the matter. He says that the appellant, having been aggrieved by a judgment or order of the Housing Appeals Tribunal of Tanzania, ought to have appealed to the Land Division of the High Court of Tanzania. Mr. Nyabiri states that S. 43 of the Rent Restriction Act has been repealed and without a saving. So, appeals are now governed by Act No. 2/2002, Cap. 216, so he says: Mr. Nyabiri is right. Section 38(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act reads: "Any party who is aggrieved by a decision or order of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate or revision jurisdiction, may within sixty days after the date of the decision or order, appeal to the High Court (Land Division)." Act No. 2/2002 is now operative by virtue of GN. 223/2003 dated 1.10.2003. It its true, as Mr. Nyabiri says, that the appeal was filed on 21.09.2005. So, the matter is incompetent in law. 20™ JULY, 2006. Mr. Njulumi - For Appellant. Mr. Rweyongeza/Nyabiri - For Respondents.