Henry Lyimo vs Eliabu E. Matee (Civil Revision No 5 of 1990) [1991] TZHC 2121 (9 August 1991)

.. CIVIL HVIlON Cn~~ NO. 5 0F 1990 H.c;NJ:ff LYIMO •••• ,, •••••••••••••••••••••• i-1.PPi!:LLl-1NT versus The applicunt is the defendant in (JM) Civil Case No. 32 of 1990 filed in the 1<:::sident Magistrate's Court "at. 1.Jar es Salaam." Inthat suit the plaintiff/respondent avers; inter alia, that he is the beneficial owner of all that land at Kinondoni 8hamba wherein there is a building known as ii11..Wa BiR 11.ND. Hl!;J:;TAURANT J..NlJ GUiST ivU.:.t." He also avers that 11 in 18/7 /19 (5:i.c) the plaintiff entered into an oral business agreement with the defendant 11 whereby they agreed. tht:lt they ;;will carry on busineD, of bar, restaurant and guest nouse on the said land, and tht the defendant new is attempting to e11 the suit premises and som~ personal properties belonging to the plaintiff secretely to s.ome prsons unknown to the plaintiff. ·-The l'alue of the ;;.lleged s'!.lit premises c.nd/or the personal properties hs not ben inaicted in the plint. ibis is via- lQtive of 0.VII r. 1 (i) of the Civil irocedure Code, 1966, which requires tht umonbst the purticulars to be cont&ined in a pl0int are 11 a statement of th1::: vc::lue of the subject matter of the suit fo,r, the purposes -uri_sd.iction [ind co.r-_fee.!?.., so far &s the on.so o.cJr.1i ts t1 e thut as it may, th plaintiff has then prayed or the followinc reli0fs 1 D.11,onGst otherc:- (1) k dclo.ration that he is the lawful owner of the ('2) suit premiss, nd A ·, c;r•;-102en ·" in iunc ti en to . . restrain tne ieienant either by h1ms8lf 1 his s&rvants or u6nts !rom i\hr ortt~ring the ~ult premises or selling the suit premises or any of the plaintiff's property in the suit premises.

vn tht;:· 25tb of ,pril ~ 1990, he ( th<:1 plaint :i.f f) pN.Sentd an application in tht• court l>c,low for tempore.ry injunction to reat.ra.;!..n th~ defendant, his servants or ugents from eithur selling tho suit premises or any of the properties in the suit premises which belong to th~ plintiff pending final datermination of the suit. 0 e also prayed for a tempor&ry closure of the business pending final disposal of the suit. In a ruling delivered·on 16/5/1990 the court Cdmuro bht-,) granted all th0 above prayers. Tho applicnt/defendnt thn filed this uppliction in thie court pryin6 that the ordr of closure of th0 business contained in the Magistrate's ruling be evised. At the hearing of the &ppliction befor0 me, eftr Mr. Mkon<lya for the applicant/defendant had submitted in suppor~ of the application, Mr. Mbuya r&pli8d by stating that the appli~ cation, hving been brought unuur Section 79 of the Civil Pro- csdure Code, is incompetent becuuse, he argued, the order which it is sought to be revised w&s un interlocutory ord0r 1 whereas Section ?9 of the Civil .l:"roct:dur Code up:r,lies to cuss which have been c.1t.:cided. In sup1,ort of these co1tc,mtions Mr. Mbuya referred this court to l(Hi::>i;.,i,h v • .t-:,t;GI0fi,L .LAN.i..J 0Fl•'IC.GH (1971) HCD .15 unu JiY,NTILAL Gi-,ND:t!;.SHJ1. v. KILINGI COFt·EE iS'l'i,'l'E LTD. & tho 1-.NuTH.r..R (1968) HCD n. 399. On th1.:: basis Jf /decisions in these cases hr. Mbuya subrnitLed thut th1;: upplic.nt 1 s/defendunt's applic.s.nt is also uroucht un<.:.E.!r ::; .95 uf tht: Civil rrocedure Code. He ulso argued that though he hc.d not so stated in the applibation 1 . under b.44 uf the: Mgistrates' Court ilct, 1984, additional powers of suprYision and revision have been conferred on the High Court. He aubn,i t t ed theri:::f0re thn t under these, latter provisions the High Court cun, by revision, intervne in intJrlocutory orders of Magistrats• Courts. In thC' c&s~ of Kassam v •• The i{egior.c.l :Land O!.ficer (supra) it .••'

• 3 - was held thats. 79 of the Ciyil Procdure Code would not pply to rvise a decision of n locutory matter. subordinat0 court ovGr an inter. In Jayantilal G0ndushel v. Kilinc;i~_Coffee Estate 1tcl. & ~ O t!:d'J the fci.cL o.nd thl: hding of the court on th0 point wore as follows: - 111 'hE:s suit prop,.,-r involves a dispute over a contrcict between the parties for the salb of a farm. Plaintiff's ad0ccita, who had ncted for both the partis during the n<:gotiatiun of the contr.:..:ct 1 was callt:.'d by .defendant ae a witnass. ?laintiff objected th&t to allow this would amo®t tu c>.n abuse of the process c.,f the court. The court permitted th0 summons to issie, nn<l in adaition ruled that in view of his role us tt witness, plaintiff's advvcat.:: shuul1'.: lla.k his retcinc·r.. fb.is petition for revision is cc,ncernE:d only with thc,so rulings. eld: (1) This pt:tition for revision w<.,J.s br•.,ur,ht un<.l.!r section 79(1) ui th(; Civil i:-'roceuurE:J Co0.e, 1966. 1 'hv High Court obse:rved that it could htwc b,;i1ll brvught un .. 1::r tho Mar;istrates' Courts rtct, Cap. 537, ss. 38, 39 1 as proviGad by a. 79(2) of the Civil rococlure Co<le 1 which gives the High Court wiuer revisicmal powo:;rs than ?9 ( 1). -As pluintiff' s petition uid not refr to the latter. provisions, however,·the court lirni ted itself to s. 79( 1) ,t~~~i 1 lt10s for rvisiona.1 jurisiction ovr decided c~~cs. Whtther an interlocutory ··uecrr:: ,nay come within the meanin[., cf 11 cuse 11 is a thorny question on which the buthorities div0rge ••••••• The present situation cannot qualify as & decided cese under any r0&s0nable definition. It was an interlocutory matter, unconc0rned with the final Jecision or that of any of the issues before the court n<l ws concrnd entirely with a step in ·the yroc&dure ••••••••••••• 11 as 0ted above, r. k0n0ya rdlics alsc on s.95 of the Civil Frooedure C0Je. I am uf the vi&w tht {hat section cannot be had recourse tu in this matter when thlr0 ar0 sp0cific prc.,,visions provit.:.ing fvr r0vision (sh· 1<Y,N INVs•r:: . .,NTS V, u.si:. (1970) Ei 675). It is only o. mE.ttter of those provisions bving c·omplied with by the applicant. ftS for the revision rovisins in the Maslgtrt•• Co.urts ..-1<1t, l984, f-1!1 tht.t (.)!;lt;~ abuv 0 heltis, b0co.use those provisions. havo not been referred to in the ap~licunt•s application this court will only limit itself to &.79 of the Civil Procedure Coue under •••• /4.

·- "·,- ... '. .,;:·i- " •, (:'.;: ,· ~. , .. ' ..... -.: ' ,,, ' .. ~1 .......

• 4 - .. .,· whic~ the a!Jylication has bc-e.1l filed .. rdt:'r maLle by the hctrned tMigistre.to· is clea·rly an . intcrlucutory one. It is an interim order· pvnding too <lte-.rmi• .. -nation of the cuse. lt is therefore not·.a case Cleci<led_. ithin th.e.- meafiixi.g of the provisions of s.79(1) of the Civil Frocedure Code anu this court has no jurisliiction to inv0ke its revisional powers. as prbviJed for in that section. 80, though the ordr (of closure . of -the busine$s) appears patently unjustified, unlike the ord'er for temporry injunction restraining sale or dispositioti of the prop0rties, this court will not interfwre with it by revision. The api-,licant's/uefencktnt's application, therefore, is dismissd, with costs. j/(/,?1tu,(_D [: ·n. t .. KYaNDO .iJ.-...1:< .1:ib baLiJM. 2-th.;. .kugust, · 1991. Mkondya - for the ap~licant JUl.iG:C: '· · ·Mkondyu/Mbuya· for 'thG- respondent Court: rluling tlelivered. --