Courts teritorial in Tanzania: Authority to support court’s jurisdiction
This post is showing the meaning of Jurisdiction, attached with Court’s judgement as reference, it’s useful in legal matters in Tanzania.
JURISDICTION
It is fundamental issue that the Court may raise suo motu whenever appropriate. Hulsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Reissue Vol. 10, para. 314, defines jurisdiction as follows:
“By ’jurisdiction: is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter or commission under which the court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by similar means”.
The case of Bestcom Company Ltd vs. Jacob Mtalitinya t/a IT Farm, High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Civil Case No. 160 of 2012 (unreported) has explained the issues of pecuniary jurisdiction in deep. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court of Tanzania It starts where pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts and Resident Magistrate’s Courts in respect of movable properties and immovable properties are limited and above indefinitely.
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts and Resident Magistrate’s Courts Section 22 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 3 of 2016 establishes the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Primary Courts in respect of movable properties is limited to Tshs. 200 Million while for immovable properties is limited to Tshs. 300 Million.
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Primary Courts Section 20 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 3 of 2016 establishes the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Primary Courts in respect of movable properties is limited to Tshs. 30 Million while for immovable properties is limited to Tshs. 50 Million.
The Court of Appeal in Tanzania Friendship Textile Mill vs. Our Lady of the Usambara Sisters [2006] TLR 70 held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine civil suits in which the quantum of damages sought fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrates.
Subject matter jurisdiction
All land cases now fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land and Housing Tribunals and the Land Division of the High Court, established under the Land Disputes Courts Act [CAP. 216 R.E. 2002].
“commercial case” is defined under Section 2 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act [CAP. 11 R.E. 2002] means a civil case involving a matter considered to be of commercial significance including but not limited to-
(i) the formation of business or commercial organization;
(ii) the governance of a business or commercial organization;
(iii) the contractual relationship of a business or commercial organization with other bodies or persons outside it;
(iv) the liability of a commercial or business organization or its officials arising out of its commercial or business activities;
(v) the liabilities of a commercial or business person arising out of that person’s commercial or business activities;
(vi) the restructuring or payment of commercial debts by or to business or commercial organization or person;
(vii) the winding up or bankruptcy of a commercial or business organization or person;
(viii) the enforcement of commercial arbitration award;
(ix) the enforcement of awards of a regional court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction made in accordance with a Treaty or Mutual Assistance arrangement to which the United Republic is a signatory and which forms part of the law of the United Republic;
(x) admiralty proceedings; and
(xi) arbitration proceedings.
Writing on such rules in common law jurisdictions, Elmer Driedger, in his Construction of Statutes (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983, p. 1), observes:
“The notion has long prevailed that three different rules or approaches may be employed in ascertaining the meaning of a statute. First, there is said to be the ‘purpose’ approach or ‘mischief rule’ Then there is said to be the ***‘literal’ approach or ‘plain meaning’ rule. Finally there is what is called the ‘golden rule’.”
In Renada Minerals Corporation vs. Consolidated Holding Corporation & Anor, High Court of Tanzania at Arusha, Civil Case No. 52 of 1999 (unreported). In that case, Rutakangwa, J. (as he then was), held that section 13 of the CPC is a rule of procedure and not of jurisdiction and, as such, cannot be construed to take away the jurisdiction of this court to entertain matters simply because it requires suits to be instituted in the lowest court competent to try it. His Lordship stated as follows (after citing with approval Mulla on The Code of Civil Procedure, 16th edition):
It is my holding therefore, that s. 13 of the CPC 1966 does not oust the jurisdiction of this court in respect of suits of this nature which by their monetary value ought to be commenced in the district or even in the primary courts. If by sheer inadvertence or for the sake of convenience a plaintiff institutes a suit of this nature which by virtue of s. 13 of the CPC 1966 as a matter of procedure and policy ought to have been instituted in one of the two subordinate courts, this court, has the option of either returning the
plaint to the plaintiff under Order VII rule 10 of the CPC 1966 or trying and determining the same.” [emphasis mine]
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Tanzania China Friendship Textile Mill vs. Our Lady of the Usambara Sisters [2006] held that, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine civil suits in which the quantum for damages sought fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts and Courts of Resident Magistrates. The effect of that decision is to exclude the option of applying Order VII rule 10 of the CPC, which would have allowed this court to either try the case itself, or return the plaint to the plaintiff for filing in a registry of a competent subordinate court. The only remaining option, following Usambara Sisters, is to strike out the suit.
Related Posts: