Kannonyele, J: A
On 28 October 1993 one Abdulhalim Ali Khatib filed a suit against Jafar Ibrahim Abdalla claiming for Shs 800,000/= with interest plus costs of the suit. He also claimed for unliquidated damages connected with the claimed amount. The suit, civil case No 60 of 1993 was instituted in the district court of Zanzibar at Vuga. B
On 1 November 1993 one Mr Haroub Sh Pandu, learned District Magistrate mentioned the suit for the first time, with the parties in absentia. He ordered the parties to attend on 15 November 1993 for another mention of the suit. Mr Pandu, District Magistrate C continued to mention the suit up to 24 February 1994 with three more mentions in between. On 2 March 1994 the case was transferred to Adam S Abdulla, another learned District Magistrate before whom consent judgment was entered on 21 June 1994 in respect of Shs 700,000/= out of the total amount claimed. That notwithstanding, D the case dragged on up to 9 February 1995 before Adam S Abdullah (then still as a District Magistrate).
Mr Adam S Abdullah was promoted Resident Magistrate sometime between 9 February 1995 and 9 March 1995. Despite this new development, however, Mr Adam S Abdullah E continued to deal with the case on the latter date and beyond, now as Resident Magistrate. However, no formal transfer was made to transfer the case from the district court to the court of a Resident Magistrate. (Unfortunately there is no provision in the Magistrate's Court Act (No 6 of 1985) providing for the transfer of cases from the district F or any other court to any of the others as there is (s 33) in respect of cases instituted in a primary court).
On 31 August 1995 Mr Adam S Abdullah pronounced ex-parte judgment against the defendant in respect of Shs 100,000/= whose liability the defendant had contested. On 4 G September 1995 Mr S Abdullah Adam, the Resident Magistrate ordered for the attachment of the defendant's property in satisfaction of the total decretal amount which had now high-rocketed to some Shs 2,463,150/=. On 8 November 1995 another Muharami Mgeni Mzee filed a Miscellaneous Application No 22 of 1995 of the Resident H Magistrate's Court at Vuga in Zanzibar which was a carry forward of the proceedings in Civil Case No 60 of 1993 of the district court of Zanzibar at Vuga (supra). The parties, namely the plaintiff and defendant in District Court Civil Case No 60 of 1993 were made co-respondents in the Misc Application No 22 of 1995 of the Resident Magistrate's Court I at Vuga, Zanzibar filed by Muharami Mgeni. Muharami was objecting to the attachment or seizure of
his property (a motor vehicle) in execution of the decree in Civil Case No 60 of 1993 of A the district Court of Zanzibar (supra). Adam S Abdullah, the Resident Magistrate heard and dismissed Muharami's application on 17 November 1995. This appeal is against the ruling of dismissal dated 17 November 1995 in RM's Misc Application No 22 of 1995 B (supra). At the hearing of the appeal on 22 March 1996, I drew attention of both counsel to the apparent jurisdictional irregularities. Both counsel then agreed not to argue the appeal but rather left it to court to deal with the matter in a manner as to it deemed proper. C
Reserving my reasons for a more opportune time, I this morning nullified and quashed for illegality all the proceedings as they were before the Resident Magistrate with effect from 9 March 1995. I now give those reasons.
Unlike the law on the mainland Tanzania where the term `district magistrate' includes a D resident magistrate (s 2 Act 2 of 1984), the situation in Zanzibar is different. So that whereas a district magistrate and a resident magistrate at the same station on the mainland normally have concurrent jurisdiction in respect of all cases filed in the district court at the station, the position is different here in Zanzibar. Here a district court and E magistrate are respectively quite different and distinct from those of a resident magistrate's court, as the case may be. In Zanzibar, a district magistrate is one appointed under s 10 of the Magistrate's Court Act 6 of 1985 and his jurisdiction is conferred under ss 11 and 13 whereas general powers are provided under ss 12 and 14 F of the Act (supra). These provisions are quite different and distinct from those under s 19 on the one hand and ss 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 which respectively provide for the appointment, jurisdiction and general powers of a resident magistrate on the other. Apart from the respective distinct original jurisdictions of these magistrates and/or their courts, G separate appellate, revisional and supervisory jurisdiction are conferred on them respectively under ss 12, 13, 16 and 17 on the one hand and ss 24 and 25 on the other. So that whereas district courts and/or magistrates are conferred with appellate and revisional jurisdictions over cases from primary courts, resident magistrates and their H courts are vested with such powers (appellate and revisional) in respect of those cases from district courts. By these provisions therefore, cases originating from primary courts are only appealable to the district court and those from the district courts to the courts of resident magistrates. I
On the other hand, only cases from resident magistrates and their
courts are directly appealable to the High Court whereas those from district courts can A only find their way to the High Court by way of second appeal thereto. This sufficiently accounts for the distinct and separate jurisdictions of district courts on the one hand and the resident magistrate's courts on the other. Briefly, ours in Zanzibar is a four-tier B system of courts from primary courts to the High Court whereas on the mainland Tanzania, it is a three-tier system of courts from primary courts to the High Court; it is a three-tier system by merging together district and resident magistrates' courts whose appeals both go directly to the High Court which is different from the situation in C Zanzibar. It is hoped that thenceforth magistrates in our jurisdiction will appreciate these jurisdictional distinctions particularly between district courts and magistrates on the one hand and resident magistrates and/or courts on the other.
Coming back to the instant case, what emerges from the foregoing is that resident D magistrates have no original jurisdiction over cases registered and instituted in the district courts. That means that if a district magistrate is promoted resident magistrate, he or she will cease to exercise original jurisdiction over those cases instituted in the district court even if he does not physically move from the station. In such situations, E such magistrates should only and within a reasonably short time after the promotion finish only those cases which have reached advanced stages, say only awaiting judgment and proximately like cases and not otherwise. Such magistrates should not unduly and unnecessarily too long cling on to cases over whose jurisdiction they have F since been divested by way of promotion. And when they cling on those cases which it is deemed necessary to do so, they should in such cases only handle the cases retaining their old titles. They should not in these cases assume their new titles to which G they have just been promoted because as such newly promoted magistrates they do not retain with them original jurisdiction over the lower court from which they have been elevated. Just as much as it would be odd for a newly promoted district magistrate to cling on his/her erstwhile primary court cases or a high court judge to cling on his/her H erstwhile subordinate court cases, so it should be for a newly promoted resident magistrate. He should fight shy to cling on his/her erstwhile district court cases.
All proceedings connected with this case but conducted before Adam the Resident Magistrate with effect from 9 March 1995 to end were all but a nullity and therefore of no I effect on account of illegality for want of jurisdiction. I quashed all such proceedings
and declared the emergent orders therefrom as non-consequential. Instead the record is A remitted to the district to proceed afresh before another district magistrate who will proceed from where the matter had reached on 9 February 1995 before Mr Adam S Abdullah was promoted resident magistrate. It is so ordered. B
C
