On his part Mr. Mnyele, learned counsel for the applicant, conceded that, in objection
proceedings, the party against whom an order is made has no right of appeal. However the learned counsel pointed out that the case
at hand is not an appeal but an application for revision, and that the appellate and revisional jurisdictions of this Court are mutually
exclusive. The learned counsel observed that, whereas in civil proceedings the Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction subject
to any other written law in force as provided for by sections 4 (1) and 5 (1) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, its revisional
jurisdiction is not subject to any other written law as provided for under Section 4 (2) (3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979
and that in revisional proceedings the Court is guided by the principles set in the cases of Moses Mwakibete v. The Editor - Uhuru, Shirika la Magazeti ya Chama and National Printing Company, (1995) TLR 134; and Halais Pro-Chemie v. Wella A.G. (1996) TLR 269. It is the learned counselfs submission that, in the instant case, where there is no right of appeal, the applicant
has a right to move the Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to resolve her grievances.
In his rejoinder the respondentfs counsel submitted that, the applicant has
not yet exhausted all remedies available to her, and that, she can file a suit under Order XXI Rule 62 to pursue her right. The learned
counsel further submitted that, the conditions in the Mwakibete and Halais cases cited above do not cover circumstances of the instant application where the applicant has another remedy provided by law, that
is, to institute a suit.
We have carefully considered the submissions by both learned counsel. There is no
dispute that the application before us originated from the decision in objection proceedings. The decision which held that the applicantfs
application for objection proceedings was time barred and had no merits. There is also no dispute that, where a claim or an objection
is preferred, the party against whom an order is made has no right of appeal but may institute a suit to establish the right which
he claims to the property in dispute, as provided for under Order XXI Rule 62 of the Civil Procedure Code. This position was also
reiterated by the Court in the case of the Bank of Tanzania v. Devram P. Valambhia ? Civil Reference No. 4 of 2003 (unreported). But the case before us is not an appeal but an application for revision. The applicant
was dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court. Since she has no right of appeal she is moving the Court to resolve her grievances
through revision. We pause and ask ourselves: Is this a proper case where this Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction? It
is common knowledge that under Section 4 (2) (3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, this Court is vested with revisional jurisdiction.
But this jurisdiction can only be exercised in appropriate circumstances. This Court had occasion to consider at length the conditions
under which it can properly invoke its revisional jurisdiction. This was in the case of Moses J. Mwakibete v. The Editor ? Uhuru, Shirika la Magazeti ya Chama and National Printing Co. Ltd. (1995) TLR 134 where it held:
i)
The revisional powers conferred by section 4 (3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, are not meant to be used as an alternative
to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal; accordingly, unless acting on its own motion, the Court of Appeal cannot be
moved to use its revisional powers under Section 4 (3) of the Act in cases where the applicant has the right of appeal with or without
leave and has not exercised that right.
ii)
The Court of Appeal can be moved to use its revisional jurisdiction under Section 4 (3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 only
where there is no right of appeal, or where the right of appeal is there but has been blocked by judicial process.
iii)
Where the right of appeal existed but was not taken, good and sufficient reasons are given for not having lodged an appeal.
These principles were reiterated in the cases of Transport Equipment Ltd. v. D.P. Valambhia (1995) TLR 161. And Halais Pro-Chemie v. Wella A.G. (1996) TLR 269.
In the instant case it is common ground that the applicant has no right of appeal. But notwithstanding lack of right of appeal, she
has an alternative remedy provided by law, that is, to institute a suit to establish the right she claims to the house in dispute
as per Order XXI Rule 62 CPC. It is our considered view that, where a party has no right of appeal but there is an alternative remedy
provided by law, he cannot properly move the Court to use its revisional jurisdiction. He must first exhaust all remedies provided
by law before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. The applicant who has not yet exhausted all remedies provided by
law cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Court. This application is incompetent.
In the event and for the reasons stated, we sustain the preliminary objection and
strike out the application. The respondent is awarded costs.
DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 2nd day of February, 2006
.RTF of original document