Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicants, seven natural persons, filed a civil suit against the Tanzania Chamber of Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture (TCCIA) in Kisutu Resident Magistrates Court. The court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction over matters under the Companies Ordinance, which fall under the High Court. After the dismissal, the respondent obtained an eviction order, prompting the applicants to seek revision of the proceedings. The preliminary objection by the respondent was dismissed, allowing the revision application to proceed.
Issues
- The court considered whether the applicants could seek revision of the proceedings in the Resident Magistrates Court after their suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The judge ruled that the application for execution and subsequent eviction order constituted valid proceedings that could be revised, citing the Nanyaro case where a judge can overrule a preliminary objection if there's a sufficient cause of complaint.
- The respondent claimed the pending appeal in the Court of Appeal precluded the current application. The judge clarified that the appeal relates to different proceedings in the High Court and that the current application is separate, arising from the eviction order in the Resident Magistrates Court.
- The respondent argued the applicants lacked standing as non-members or officers of TCCIA. The court dismissed this, stating that as parties to the proceedings, the applicants had the right to complain regardless of their membership status.
Holdings
- The second ground, which argued that the applicants lacked the right to be heard due to not being members or officers of TCCIA, was dismissed. The court emphasized that the applicants were parties to the proceedings and thus have the right to complain regardless of their membership status.
- The court dismissed the first ground of the preliminary objection, finding that the application for execution and the resulting eviction order were valid proceedings in the Resident Magistrates Court. The judge cited the case of Emanuel Abraham Nanyaro Vs Peniel Ole Saitabau (1987 TLR 47) to support the view that a sufficient cause of complaint exists for the revision application.
- The third ground was based on a pending appeal in the Court of Appeal. The court found this argument unpersuasive, stating that the High Court proceedings are separate from the Court of Appeal case and the preliminary objection here does not depend on the outcome of the other case.
Remedies
- The court awarded costs to the applicants in relation to the dismissed preliminary objection.
- The court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the respondent, allowing the application for revision to proceed.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that a judge may overrule a preliminary objection if there is sufficient disclosure of a cause of complaint, as established in the case of Emanuel Abraham Nanyaro Vs Peniel Ole Saitabau (1987 TLR 47). This allowed the revision application to proceed despite the dismissal of the original suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Precedent Name
Emanuel Abraham Nanyaro Vs Peniel Ole Saitabau
Cited Statute
- Magistrates Courts Act 1984
- Civil Procedure Code 1966
Judge Name
J. I. Mlay
Passage Text
- The application for execution and the granting of the order of execution, are proceedings which were before the Resident Magistrates Court. These are the proceeding which the applicants are complaining of in the application for revision.
- In the circumstances, regardless of their position or membership with TCCIA, they have the right to complain about a decision made in proceedings in which they were parties.
- Those are therefore different proceedings. The present proceedings arise directly from the order made by the Resident Magistrate, subsequent to the dismissal of the suit.