Matilda Dionis vs Anthon Keppa (Civil Appeal No. 1156 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 502 (7 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA fCORAM; FIKIRINI. J.A. RUMANYIKA. 3.A. And ISSA. J J U CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2025 MATILDA DIONIS..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS ANTHON KEPPA ................................................................ RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Resident Magistrate Court of Manyara at Manyara -Extended Jurisdiction) fLusewa. PRM-Ext.Juris! dated the 23rd day of December/ 2024 in Matrimonial Appeal No. 22648 of 2024 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 4th & 7th May, 2026. FIKIRINI, J.A.: A court must possess proper jurisdiction. The absence of jurisdiction, including failure to transfer a case under specific provisions such as section 45(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap. 11 Revised Laws (the MCA) or section 271 (1) (former section 256A (1)) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Cap. 20 Revised Laws (the CPA), renders proceedings and any resulting decision a nullity. This defect has tainted the proceedings in the present appeal. Before addressing the irregularity noted, it is useful to outline the background to the matter leading to this appeal. The appellant, Matilda Dionis, and the respondent, Anthon Keppa, were married for over forty years, having solemnized a Christian marriage in the 1970s. Due to irreconcilable differences, they eventually separated and lived apart for a considerable period. In an effort to salvage the marriage, the respondent referred the dispute to the Katesh Marriage Reconciliation Board. The reconciliation attempts proved unsuccessful, and on 8th February, 2024, the Board issued a certificate confirming its inability to reconcile the parties. Thereafter, the respondent instituted proceedings for dissolution of marriage before the Hanang Primary Court in Matrimonial Cause No. 02 of 2024. Upon hearing the matter and evaluating the evidence, the trial court dissolved the marriage and ordered division of matrimonial assets. The appellant was awarded two houses, cattles, a one-acre farm, and a plot of land, while the respondent received one house and a three-acre farm. 2 Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the District Court of Hanang, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decision. A further appeal to the High Court was also dismissed, giving rise to the present appeal, predicated on three grounds which we refrain from reproducing for reasons that will shortly become apparent. On the date fixed for hearing, both parties appeared unrepresented. Observing an irregularity in the proceedings before the Principal Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction, the Court sought to satisfy itself as to the propriety of those proceedings. The issue raised was purely legal, and the parties, being lay persons, had little to contribute beyond acquiescing to the Court's guidance. The record reveals that Matrimonial Appeal No. 22648 of 2024 was lodged in the High Court of Tanzania at Manyara on 11th September, 2024. On the same day, summons were issued requiring the parties to appear on 24th November, 2024. On 9th October, 2024, the matter was mentioned before the initially assigned Judge, who rescheduled the hearing to 10th March, 2025. Despite these orders, and without any formal transfer order on record, the Deputy Registrar issued summons on 14th November, 2024 requiring the parties to appear before Hon. M. B. Lusewa, Principal 3 Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. On 21st November, 2024, the matter was placed before the said Magistrate, who directed that the appeal be disposed of by written submissions and subsequently delivered judgment on 23r d December, 2024. Those proceedings were fundamentally incompetent for want of jurisdiction, as no lawful transfer order had been issued by the High Court to the Resident Magistrate's Court, nor specifically to the Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Principal Resident Magistrate lacked authority to preside over and determine the case under section 45(2) of the MCA. In Kessy Raymond Kimwaga v. Bi Moshi Omary [2020] TZCA 1778, the Court held: "It is settled law that a Court of Resident Magistrate cannot exercise extended jurisdiction untii a formal order of transfer by the appropriate authority of the High Court is made to the specific Resident Magistrate and the respective court, so that the appeal or application validly lodged in the High Court is registered in the appropriate register of that court before determination / ' [Emphasis added] Similarly, in Hamis Said @ Chino v. R [2024] TZCA 819, this Court reiterated that jurisdiction is statutory and cannot be assumed or presumed. Since the present appeal arises from a defective decision, any appeal against it is a nullity. This Court cannot assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as doing so would validate proceedings void ab initio. Consequently, the appeal is incompetent and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we hereby nullify the proceedings, judgment, quash the orders, and pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 Revised Laws, remit the record to the High Court for proper hearing of the appeal. Each party to bear its own costs. DATED at ARUSHA this 7th May, 2026. P. S. FIKIRINI JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. M. RUMANYIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. A. ISSA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 7th day of May, 2026 via teleconferencing in the presence of appellant and respondent in person and Mr. Nelson Novati, Court Clerk in person is hereby certified as a true copy of the J. J. KAMALA DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL