Description
Specific damages – pecuniary jurisdiction – general damages – exercise of the High Court’s general jurisdiction – pecuniary value of the subject matter – proviso to section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code – whether the claimed damages are specific or general
- In determining the jurisdiction of the court, the court must look at what is pleaded in the plaint and its annexures (p. 5).
- It is specific damages which determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, and not general damages (p. 5).
- There is now a clear provision that saves the general jurisdiction of this Court to entertain matters that are filed in it if the Court is pleased to entertain them, even though the jurisdiction to entertain the case may lie in a sub-ordinate Court. It means that the exercise of the High Court’s “general jurisdiction” is in no way affected by the pecuniary value of the subject matter (p. 8).
- A claim of damages in the sum of TShs. 800,000,000/- filed before the High Court – the plaint did not specifiy whether the damages are specific or general – even if one were to hold that the claim is general damages, which does not determine a court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the proviso to section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code would still operate to preserve the general jurisdiction of this court to entertain the matter, if it so pleases. The High Court may thus entertain the suit, the value of the subject matter notwithstanding. Alternatively, the Court may return the plaint to the plaintiff, with a direction that it be filed in a subordinate court competent to try it (p. 8).
- The Court added that the question whether the claimed damages are specific or general does not have any effect on the general jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore the Court decided to try the case (p. 9).
