This ruling addresses a narrow but significant issue, that
is to say; whether a litigant has a room to prefer an appeal or revision from a
non- conclusive interlocutory decision of the High Court notwithstanding the
prohibition from doing so under section 5 (2) (d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction
Act [Cap 141 R.E. 2019] (the AJA).
Before the High Court sitting at Iringa, the Respondent
instituted a suit against the applicant namely; Land Case No. 7 of 2015. The
applicant resisted that suit in his written statement of defence raising a
notice of preliminary objection in points of law amongst others, that the suit
was partly res sub judice and partly res judicata. For reasons
which are not directly relevant to this ruling, the applicant abandoned the
said objections. Subsequently, he filed a notice of preliminary objection(s) on
the same points he had abandoned earlier. Not amused, the High Court found the
filing of the notice without the court’s leave irregular and an abuse of the
Court process and had it struck out vide ruling delivered on 22nd
August, 2017. It is that ruling which has culminated into the instant
application for revision made under rules 48 (1), 65 (1) of the Rules and
section 4 (3) of the AJA.
Before counsel for applicant took the floor to submit on
the merits of the application, the Court invited him to address it whether the
application was competently before the Court having regard to the dictates of
section 5 (2) (d) of the AJA which prohibits appeals and applications for
revision from interlocutory orders of the High Court which do not have the
effect of finally and conclusively disposing of matters before that court.