Athumani Rubindo vs Zuhura Fredriki Kalo & Others (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 566 (13 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: MWANPAMBO, J.A.. KENTE. J.A. And MGONYA. J.A.^ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2024 ATHUMANI RUBINDO APPELLANT VERSUS ZUHURA FREDRIKI KALO 1 st RESPONDENT KAMWANYA LUVUMA 2 nd REPOPNDENT MBEZI AUCTION MART AND COMPANY LIMITED 3 rd RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Kigoma) 5th & 13th May, 2026 KENTE, J.A.: The appellant, Athuman Rubindo, has come on appeal to this Court seeking to challenge a High Court Judgment dated 4th August 2023 that was in favour of the first respondent herein one Zuhura Fredriki Kalo. In that judgment, it was decided that, the first respondent who was the plaintiff in the High Court, was the lawful owner of a piece of land measuring half an acre located at Katonga area in the Municipality of Kigoma. The present appellant and third respondent who were alleged to have wrongfully evicted the first respondent from the said property, tMagfligaJL) dated the 4th day of August, 2023 in Civil Case No. 8 of 2022 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

were subsequently ordered jointly to pay her TZS 10,000,000.00 being general damages for harassing and disturbing her thereby denying her of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her property. Dissatisfied with the High Court judgment, the appellant has now come on appeal to this Court advancing six grounds in which he faults the learned High Court Judge as having erred both in law and in fact on six aspects. However, for the reasons that will become apparent in the course of this judgment, it occurs to us that the most relevant ground in the determination of this matter,is the fifth ground of appeal which faults the learned trial Judge for misconstruing the provisions of section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (Chapter 33 of the Revised Laws) and subsequently assuming jurisdiction over a dispute in respect of a piece of land valued at TZS 15,000,000.00 only. This position by the appellant is premised on the fact that, as the law stands today, it is the District Land and Housing Tribunals that have original pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine land disputes in which the value of the immovable property involved does not exceed TZS 300,000,000.00. Submitting in support of this ground, Mr. Sadiki Aliki learned counsel who appeared through a video conferencing platform from Kigoma representing the appellant, contended that, it was rather erroneous for the learned High Court Judge to continue adjudicating this

matter after the suit against the Kigoma Municipality and the Attorney General who were impleaded along with the present 1st appellant and 2n d and 3rd respondents as defendants, was struck out following a motion by their respective counsel. The trial court's preliminary ruling in this respect was that, the first respondent had no cause of action against them. According to Mr. Aliki, as such, there was no dispute regarding the value of the disputed piece of land, after removal of the Municipal Council and the Attorney General from the suit which was initially filed in the High Court pursuant to section 7 of the Government Proceedings Act after the Attorney General had been added as a necessary party, it was incumbent upon the High Court Judge to strike out the suit and advise the 1st respondent to file it in the Kigoma District Land and Housing Tribunal (the DLHT) which was the court with competent original jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The learned counsel reinforced his point by referring us to the High Court decision in the case of Shaban Ally Ichilima v. NMB Bank PLC and Three Others, Civil Case No. 8 of 2018 [2021] TZCA 456 (13 April 2021). In the event that we uphold the appellant's position and determine that indeed the High Court Judge had acted without the requisite jurisdiction, Mr. Aliki implored us to allow the appeal, nullify the

proceedings In the lower courts and set aside the resulting orders together with advising the first respondent, if she feels disposed, to refer her grievances to the DLHT. In his response, Mr. Daniel Rumenyela learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted very briefly that, what was decided by the learned High Court Judge was correct in the context and the particular circumstances of this case. He argued that, after making an order striking out from the suit the Attorney General and the Municipal Council who were respectively the fourth and fifth defendants, in terms of the proviso to section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, the trial court still retained the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter despite the fact that the value of the subject piece of land fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the DLHT. Mr. Rumenyela's specific submission was that, the High Court was correct in refusing Mr. Aliki's prayer that the suit be struck out of the High Court register and the first respondent who was the plaintiff at the time, be advised to lodge it in the DLHT which was the proper forum. The learned counsel also sought to criticize Mr. Aliki for raising the issue of the trial court's lack of jurisdiction rather belatedly when the proceedings were already at the defence stage. According to Mr. Rumenyela, at that point, arguing that the High Court had no jurisdiction

was a secondary thought. On the particular facts of this case, the learned counsel entreated us to hold that the trial court was properly clothed with the requisite jurisdiction because the value of the subject piece of land fell within its unlimited statutory powers. For his part, the second respondent who also appeared through a video conferencing system from Dar es Salaam, had understandably nothing substantial to say in respect of what was submitted by Mr. Aliki. Being lay he simply concurred with Mr. Rumenyela saying that essentially, he was opposed to the appeal and thus he was in agreement with whatever was decided by the lower court. As to the third respondent company, it was absent despite being duly served with a notice of hearing upon which we proceeded with the hearing in their absence. To start with, we wish to state very quickly that, we have no issue with the finding by the learned High Court Judge, to the extent only, that, in terms of Article 108(2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended from time to time, the High Court enjoys unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction in adjudicating civil matters. Our point of departure however, is on the interpretation accorded by the learned trial Judge to the proviso to section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code that, unlimited jurisdiction means pecuniary jurisdiction from "zero

to the sky". While we accept that the proviso to section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was enacted as a residual clause to retain and safeguard the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court in dealing with land disputes, this enactment did not give the High Court concurrent jurisdiction with the DLHT as a carte blanche to hear and determine any land dispute as erroneously held by the learned Judge. We take the view that, although the High Court enjoys unlimited jurisdiction as stated above, there is a strict procedural requirement and, indeed it is the judicial policy as stipulated in section 13 of the Procedure Code that, every suit should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Accordingly, this Court had the occasion to guide in the case of Manjit Singh Sandhu & Others v. Robibi R. Robiti, Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2014, that: "Since section 13 o f the Civil Procedure Code required that every suit be instituted in the court o f the lowest grade to try it... the High Court had no jurisdiction to try the respondent's suit". Moving forward, it behoves us to observe, albeit in passing that, the reasons for filing suits in the lowest competent courts, are not farfetched. They include, the efficiency in case distribution by preventing highercourts from becoming overwhelmed with cases that couldeasily be settled in the lower courts; convenience and cost efficiency to the

parties as the lower courts are generally more accessible locally, making it cheaper and easier for litigants to attend hearings; optimal use of resources in that, the filing of suits in the lower courts of competent jurisdiction ensures that experienced judges in higher courts focus on complicated litigation, while simpler matters are handled by lower courts and optimizing judicial resources and preservation of appellate structure meaning that, by starting at the lowest level, aggrieved parties retain the right to appeal to higher courts, ensuring a proper multi-tiered judicial process. (See: Things to Consider Before Instituting a Suit at: https://www.tanzaniaweb.co.tz (visited on 10th May, 2026). Having said so and, as intimated earlier, it is not our intention to consider the other grounds of appeal proferred by the appellant. Suffice it to say that, with the greatest respect to the learned High Court Judge we totally disagree with his interpretation of the proviso to section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code which, as it turned out, he failed to comprehend. Having considered the issues raised and the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel, we agree with Mr. Aliki that indeed the learned trial judge assumed the jurisdiction over the matter which he did not have. Recognising the cogency of Mr. Aliki's argum ents, we thus dismiss the arguments raised on behalf of the first respondent and seconded by the second respondent.

In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs. The proceedings of the lower court is nullified, the judgment and decree are vacated for having been borne out of the trial court's want of jurisdiction. The first respondent is advised, if she feels disposed, to file her suit in the DLHT which is the lowest court with competent jurisdiction to entertain this matter, but subject to the mandatory requirements of section 13(4) of Land Disputes Courts Act, Chapter 216 of the revised laws. DATED at MWANZA 12th day of May, 2026. L. S. MWANDAMBO JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. M. KENTE JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. E. MGONYA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 13th day of May, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Daniel Zawald Rumenyela, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent who also held brief for Mr. Sadiki Aliki, learned counsel for the Appellant, 2n d respondent who appeared in person unrepresented, and in the absence of the 3rd respondent and Mr. John Banene, Court Clerk; being present, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original.