Heritage Motel v Copyright Society of Tanzania and Honorable Attorney General, Commercial Case No. 04 of 2009, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam
Heritage Motel v Copyright Society of Tanzania and Honorable Attorney General, Commercial Case No. 04 of 2009, High Court of Tanzania, Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam
Makaramba, J.
Date of Judgment: July 3, 2009
Facts
Heritage Motel, a private limited liability company running a hotel business, filed a lawsuit against the Copyright Society of Tanzania, a corporate body, and the Honorable Attorney General, the chief legal advisor of the Government of Tanzania. The plaintiff sought among other things, a permanent injunction against the defendants and a declaration that the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, (CAP 218, R.E. 2002), and the Copyright (Licensing of Public Performance and Broadcasting) Regulations, 2003 were unfair. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the aforementioned laws were unfair and permanent injunctive relief against the named defendants.
Before the hearing of the case, the defendants raised several preliminary objections. The Copyright Society of Tanzania contended the High Court lacked pecuniary (subject matter) jurisdiction to hear this case, because the value of the suit was below the requisite 30,000,000/ TZS. The Honorable Attorney General alleged that the plaintiff did not disclose any cause of action against her and that the plaintiff failed to provide notice of suit to the Government, as required by section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, (Cap. 5 R.E. 2002). The Attorney General claimed that the Attorney General was wrongly brought in the case, since pursuant to section 46 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (Cap. 218 R.E. 2002). The Copyright Society of Tanzania, being a corporate body, can be sued in its own name. The plaintiff argued that the Attorney General was a necessary party, and therefore, the Commercial Division of the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction as per section 6(4) of the Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 5 R.E. 2002).
Holdings
(i) In commercial proceedings, as a matter of law, the High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction. A case may be brought either in the High Court or in the competent lower courts subject only to the requirement that the pecuniary value of the subject matter in the High Court exceeds 30,000,000/ TZS.
(ii) There is a well-established principle derived from section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (Cap. 33 R.E. 2002) that lawsuits must be initially heard by the lowest court competent to hear them.
(iii) The Commercial Division of the High Court does not have jurisdiction over constitutional matters. These are dealt with following a special procedure under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, (Cap. 3, R.E. 2002).
(iv) A party is necessary to an action if and only if the action cannot be effectively and completely settled unless that party is a part of the suit so as to make that party bound by the result of the action.
Decision
The case was dismissed. The High Court, Commercial Division lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter since the amount claimed was below its pecuniary jurisdiction of 30,000,000/ TZS. The plaintiff failed to prove that the Attorney General was a necessary party to this action. Thus, the case was dismissed for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.