Tanzania Case Law

KILEMPU RuLing 2025 Klemp Objection

Court

TANZLII

The preliminary objections on pecuniary jurisdiction and limitation are meritless; the High Court has jurisdiction due to the value of the land and the amended section 13 CPC; the application is not time barred as ownership claims are not subject to the three-year limitation for tortious acts; the applicant established a prima facie case, risk of irreparable harm, and greater hardship, warranting an interim order to maintain status quo pending determination of the main suit.

Source excerpt

• Interim injunction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Limitation of actions
• Trespass
• Ownership of land

Read case analysis

ASA vs Zaydar

Court

TANZLII

The appellant lacked locus standi to seek extension of time for revision as he had no established legal interest in the judgment and decree of the trial court, and the application before the District Court was incompetent. Consequently, the District Court's proceedings and ruling were nullified, and the appeal was struck out.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Revision
• Locus standi
• Execution proceedings
• Necessary parties
• Pecuniary jurisdiction

Read case analysis

116

Court

TANZLII

The claim was a third-party insurance claim arising from a tort, not a commercial case, and thus the District Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the matter as an ordinary civil suit since the specific damages claimed were within the statutory limit.

Source excerpt

• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Third party insurance claims
• Classification of civil vs commercial cases

Read case analysis

REV PADRE JOSHUA SCANNED

Court

TANZLII

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from breach of lease agreements, as such jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the District Court by statute, irrespective of the value of the subject matter or damages claimed.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Breach of lease
• Trespass
• Pecuniary jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Flowin Haule

Court

TANZLII

The trial court erred in striking out the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction because, although the specific damages claimed fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the primary court, the nature of the claim was a common law tort (malicious prosecution) over which the primary court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court was the proper forum to hear the matter.

Source excerpt

• Malicious prosecution
• Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Common law torts

Read case analysis

ACM

Court

TANZLII

The trial court had pecuniary jurisdiction as the plaint pleaded a claim of TZS 123,000,000, which is within the court's jurisdiction. The appellant admitted receipt of TZS 20,000,000 for a specific contractual purpose but used it for other activities, constituting breach. The alleged contract defect was not pleaded and did not prevent performance. The respondent proved breach on a balance of probabilities. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Breach of contract
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Burden of proof
• Pleadings
• Evidence assessment

Read case analysis

MZIBA JEREMIAH

Court

TANZLII

The High Court allowed a land appeal, quashing Ward Tribunal and District Land and Housing Tribunal decisions for party exclusion and lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction of ward tribunals
• Proper constitution of tribunals
• Party exclusion
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Consolidation of appeals
• Ward-tribunal-jurisdiction

Read case analysis

ABRAHAM SYKES VS ARAF ALLY KLEIST

Court

TANZLII

The High Court struck out a tort suit for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, holding the claims belonged in a lower court under section 13 of the CPC.

• Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Tort
• Declaratory relief
• Civil-procedure
• Pecuniary-jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Bumaco Insurance

Court

TANZLII

The plaint was fatally defective for failing to explicitly state the total value of the subject matter, violating mandatory procedural requirements, rendering the suit incompetent and depriving the trial court of jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Pleadings
• Insurance contract
• Damages

Read case analysis

jefferson philibert bayekela administrator of estate of the late philibert sweetbert bayekela 2024 tzhc 610 29 february 2024

Court

TZHC

The District Court correctly dismissed the suit for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as insurance claims below TZS 40,000,000 must be referred to the Insurance Ombudsman, not the courts, in accordance with Section 123 of the Insurance Act and relevant regulations.

Source excerpt

• Pecuniary jurisdiction
• Insurance ombudsman
• Exclusive jurisdiction
• Preliminary objection

Read case analysis