| dc.description | SAMUELI KOBELO MUHULO VS. NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (Korosso, Kitusi & Mashaka JJ.A)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442/17 OF 2018
(Application for revision from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania (Land Division) at Dar es Salaam in Land Revision 23 of 2012 by Mansoor J)
Civil Procedure and Practice- Revision- Whether revision can be preferred in alternative to appeal?
Civil Procedure and Practice- Appeal-whether an interlocutory decision is appealable?
Civil Procedure and Practice – Interlocutory decision- criteria to determine an interlocutory decision?
Facts;
The dispute arose from the intervention of the High Court of Tanzania following the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Morogoro declined to the preliminary objection of the respondent on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. After the administrative intervention of the High Court, the Applicant filed Land Revision No. 23 of 2012 which was strike out by Mansoor J. Following that order, the Applicant approached by the Court of Appeal by way of revision premised under Section 4(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [Cap 141 R.E 2019] and Rule 65(1),(2),(3) and (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009.
Held;
1. The Court reinstated its earlier position in the case of Halais Pro-Chemie v. Wella A. G. [1996] T.L. R. 269, Moses Mwakibete v. The Editor, Uhuru, Shirika la Magazeti ya Chama and Another [1995] T.L.R 134, Kezia Violet Mato v. National Bank of Commerce and 3 Others, Civil Application No. 127 of 2005 and Chama cha Walimu Tanzania v. The Attorney General, Civil Application No. 151 of 2008 (both unreported) “that where an appeal lies a party may not resort to revision as an alternative unless it is shown that the appellate process has been blocked by judicial process”
2. It is a settled position that an interlocutory decision is not appealable in terms of Section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [Cap 141 R.E 2019]
3. It is settled that an order which is final and tends to finally conclude the matter before it by applying the “nature of order test” as stated in the case of Murtaza Ally Mangungu v. The Returning Officer of Kilwa and Two Others, Civil Application No. 80 of 2016 (unreported) is not interlocutory and thus appealable.
Application granted and each party ordered to bear their own costs.
Statutory provision referred;
1. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [ Cap 141 R.E 2019], Section 5(2)(d)
Case laws referred to;
1. Halais Pro-Chemie v. Wella A. G. [1996] T.L. R. 269,
2. Moses Mwakibete v. The Editor, Uhuru, Shirika la Magazeti ya Chama and Another [1995] T.L.R 134,
3. Kezia Violet Mato v. National Bank of Commerce and 3 Others, Civil Application No. 127 of 2005 (unreported) and
4. Chama cha Walimu Tanzania v. The Attorney General, Civil Application No. 151 of 2008 (unreported) | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | 1.The Court reinstated its earlier position in the case of Halais Pro-Chemie v. Wella A. G. [1996] T.L. R. 269, Moses Mwakibete v. The Editor, Uhuru, Shirika la Magazeti ya Chama and Another [1995] T.L.R 134, Kezia Violet Mato v. National Bank of Commerce and 3 Others, Civil Application No. 127 of 2005 and Chama cha Walimu Tanzania v. The Attorney General, Civil Application No. 151 of 2008 (both unreported) “that where an appeal lies a party may not resort to revision as an alternative unless it is shown that the appellate process has been blocked by judicial process”
2.It is a settled position that an interlocutory decision is not appealable in terms of Section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [Cap 141 R.E 2019]
3.It is settled that an order which is final and tends to finally conclude the matter before it by applying the “nature of order test” as stated in the case of Murtaza Ally Mangungu v. The Returning Officer of Kilwa and Two Others, Civil Application No. 80 of 2016 (unreported) is not interlocutory and thus appealable. | en_US |
