Jackson John Buzoya vs Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (Civil Appeal No. 28184 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2550 (25 May 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA BUKOBA SUB-REGISTRY AT BUKOBA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 28184 OF 2025 (Arising from Civil Revision No. 23517 of 2025 Ngara District Court, original Civil Case No. 16 of 2024 Primary Court of Ngara District sitting at Rusumo) JACKSON JOHN BUZOYA ................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS NILE EQUATORIAL LAKES SUBSIDIARY ACTION PROGRAM .......................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 12 th & 25 th May, 2026 KIWONDE J.: The appellant, Jackson John Buzoya, successfully sued the respondent at Rusumo primary court claiming TZS 10,000,000/= balance of the contractual payment for water supply and he was awarded TZS 5,000,000/= being disturbance cost and cost of the suit. However, when he referred the matter to the District Court of Ngara for execution, the District Court suo motu revised the award or decree, quashed the judgment on reason that the trial primary court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. i Being aggrieved by the revision order of the District Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal armed with two (2) grounds of appeal as follows: 1) That the District Court of Ngara erred in law and fact in nullifying and quashing the decision of the primary court of Ngara District at Rusumo in revision proceedings without hearing the parties contrary to the requirement of law, making the said ruling a nullity. 2) That the District Court of Ngara erred in law and fact in holding that Tanzanian Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising from the contract of provision of clean water entered between the appellant and the respondent on 15 th March, 2021, contrary to the provisions of the said contract and causing injustice to the appellant. The appellant prayed this court to allow this appeal with cost, quash the ruling of the District Court of Ngara and confirm the decision of the trial primary court. The respondent was duly served with a petition of appeal but could not file a reply and or appeal to court, thus, this appeal was heard ex-parte. 2 During hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr. Joseph Bitakwate, learned counsel. In supporting the appeal, the learned counsel argued that the District Curt of Ngara raised the issue of jurisdiction of the trial primary court suo motu, revised the proceedings and judgment and eventually, nullified and quashed them without affording the parties the right to be heard. The learned counsel argued that the right to be heard is fundamental and the since the parties were denied the same, the ruling in revision is a nullity. He cited the case of Christian Makondoro Versus The Inspector General of Police and the Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 30 (22 nd February, 2021) TanzLII and article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, that the parties must be fairly heard. Regarding the second ground of appeal, the counsel for the appellant argued that the District Court erred in law to hold that the courts in this country had no jurisdiction due to their contract which stipulated that whenever the dispute arises, it had to be referred to Rwanda. But he said under section 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 (R. E 2023), 3 objection as to the place of suing will not be allowed in the appeal or revision unless it was raised at the trial stage of the suit. According to the counsel, in this matter, the trial court heard the matter but no issue of jurisdiction was raised, rather, it was raised suo motu at the execution stage which was misdirection. Apart from that, the learned counsel submitted that the contract was executed at Rusumo, Tanzania side, also, the appellant had to be paid in Tanzanian shillings, thus, under the circumstances, it was an error for the District Court Magistrate to say the courts in our country lacked jurisdiction. He prayed this appeal be allowed, the decision of the District Court be quashed, proceedings be nullified and orders be set aside, while, the trial court's decision be confirmed and cost of the appeal be borne by the respondent. Having revisited the lower courts' records and carefully considered the oral submissions by the counsel for the appellant, the main issue for determination is whether this appeal finds merit or otherwise. At the outset, I find the first ground of appeal has been merited. The parties were not afforded an opportunity to be heard. The district court, 4 in its own motion, raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the trial primary court and revised the decision, quashed it to the detriment of the parties, especially the appellant. This was in violation of the principle of natural justice that no party has to be condemned unheard. It is clear that the district court has powers to call for, examine and revise the records of the primary court in its local limit under section 22(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Cap 11 (R. E 2023). However, under sub-section (3), the district court has no power to alter or change or reduce or quash the award without hearing the parties. For easy of reference, I quote part of the law: " (3) In addition to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, no order shall be made in the exercise of the court's revisionai jurisdiction in any proceeding of a civil nature increasing any sum awarded, or altering the rights of any party to his detriment, other than an order quashing proceedings in a lower court or an order reducing any award in excess of the jurisdiction or powers of the lower court to the extent necessary to make it conform thereto, unless such party has been given an opportunity of being heard. " 5 From the position of the law above, it is apparent that the district court went astray in exercising revisional powers without giving the parties the opportunity to he heard. I concur with the counsel for the appellant that the right to be heard is fundamental and so, it should not be lightly denied. For that matter, the first ground of appeal is meritorious and it is allowed. The ruling of the district court dated 1 st October, 2025 in Civil Revision No. 23517 of 2025 is quashed and its subsequent orders are set aside. Regarding the second ground of appeal, it is trite law that jurisdiction of the court(s) is a creature of statute. No parties can agree to confer jurisdiction to the court or oust the same. In this appeal, the trial primary court had jurisdiction to try the matter but under the circumstances of the suit, it ought to have refused to hear and determine the suit before it. The counsel for the appellant asked this court to confirm the decision of the trial primary court after quashing the revision order of the district court. But the records are loud that the parties, in clear, explicit, specific and express terms, agreed to choose the forum or jurisdiction of courts in case a dispute would arise between. Their agreement was that they would submit themselves to the jurisdiction of courts or arbitration in Rwanda. 6 It is settled and celebrated legal principle that jurisdiction of courts is a creature of statute and the parties cannot confer jurisdiction to court or oust it by their choice or agreement. But the exception to the general rule is that where either of the courts are competent to entertain the suit but the parties, explicitly and expressly agree to choose the law and forum where they submit themselves and the dispute to be resolved by such courts, the forum of their choice will have exclusive jurisdiction to try the matter. This means that their agreement is binding upon them. In Scova Engineering S. P. A and another Versus Mtibwa Estates Ltd and others (Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2017) [2021] TZCA 74 (12 th March, 2021) TanzLII, it was held that where the parties to a contract, in clear, explicit and express terms, agree to chose the forum of court, their agreement has always been found to be binding. They choose to submit the dispute to a particular jurisdiction, so, their agreement is not said to be void or against a public policy. Though they cannot oust jurisdiction of the court, but their express, clear, specific and explicit terms to choose the court in exclusion of all others, that court would be the litigants' court to adjudicate their dispute; the agreement binds the parties and they cannot resort to a different court. 7 In the present appeal, the parties agreed in clear, express and specific terms and chose the contract to be governed by the laws of Rwanda and in case there arises any dispute, it should be referred to adjudication or arbitration in accordance with the laws of the respondent's country. In clauses 11 and 12 of the contract (exhibit Pl), it is shown that: "11-The contract shall be governed by the laws of Rwanda and the language shall be English. 12-Any dispute arising out of the contract which cannot be amicably settled between the parties, shall be referred to adjudication/arbitration in accordance with the laws of the client's country. " So, it is clear that the parties chose to submit their dispute to the courts in Rwanda for either adjudication or arbitration according to the laws of the respondent's country in exclusion of the courts in Tanzania. For that matter, the appellant was precluded from resorting to Rusumo primary court in Tanzania. The trial court could have refrained from taking cognizance of the suit despite having jurisdiction. This position is backed up by the decision in Scova Engineering S. P. A case (supra). 8 It follows therefore that, though the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it had to refrain from recognizing the matter for the parties had chosen the forum which agreement is binding upon them. For this reason, the second ground of appeal has merit and it is allowed too, but the trial court went astray to entertain the suit while the parties had chosen to submit themselves to a different jurisdiction. So, the trial court's proceedings, decision and orders thereto, are a nullity. As a result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated. But the end results are different. Consequently, the proceedings of the trial primary court in Civil Case No. 19 of 2024 are nullified, the judgment is quashed and the resultant orders are set aside. The appellant, if he still wishes, may pursue his rights to the agreed forum of their choice. Dated at Bukoba this 25 th May, 2026. F. H. Ki nde Judge 25/05/2026 9 Court: Judgment is delivered in chamber in the presence of the appellant, Mr. Samwel Angelo, advocate holding brief of Mr. Joseph Bitakwate for the appellant and Suzana Tungaraza (RMA) but in the absence of the respondent this 25 th May, 2026 and the right of further appeal is explained. Judge 25/05/2026 io