image2330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL NO. 14395 OF 2024 (Originating From Application No. 13 of 2022, Temeke District Land and Housing Tribunal) ABDALLAH HAMED HUMEID l^r APPELLANT SILVER STAR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY LTD 2^0 APPELLANT KHAMISA SALUM MOHAMED (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Hassan Mohamed Mohsin and Salum Mohamed Mohsin) S"*" APPELLANT NYANYA MOHAMED MOHSIN (Administrator of the Estate of the Late Hassan Mohamed Mohsin and Salum Mohamed Mohsin) ......A™ APPELLANT VERSUS ESMAIL ABDULWAHID ESMAIL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 25'*^ to 30«^ July, 2024 E.B. LUVANDA,J At the Tribunal, the Respondent herein above filed amended application on 12/12/2022 for reliefs that he be declared the lawful owner of the suit property described as Plot No. 4 CT No. 186100/4, Kurasini Area Temeke Municipality, suggesting to be valued 100,000,000 only. The First to Fourth Appellant, inclusive, raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal has no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter before it for reason that the suit property is valued Tsh. 927,000,000 which is over and above the pecuniary 1 jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This preliminary objection was overruled on 18/04/2023 by the Tribunal, on the ground that the Respondent herein had pleaded the suit premises to be valued Tsh 100,000,000 well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that a valuation report submitted by the Appellant herein was made in February 2023 after the application was filed (on 11/2/2022). Therefore, the Tribunal commissioned for the matter to be heard on merits. After Eric Henry Asenga (PW2) Land Officer Temeke, had testifying at the Tribunal in favour of the Respondent herein, and after closure of the PlaintifTs case who is the Respondent herein, the learned Counsel for Appellants re-raised the same concern that PW2 asserted under oath that the value of the subject matter is Tsh 944,000,000/-, where the Tribunal ruled to be functus officio retained its position dated 18/04/2023 and advised parties to appeal. Hence this appeal. In the memorandum of appeal, the Appellants raised one ground of appeal: That the trial Chairperson grossly erred in law and fact to rule out that the trial Tribunal has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the application. Mr. Abdul Aziz learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that on 5/03/2024 when the second witness for the Respondent herein was testifying under oath, stated that the suit property was valued by the valuer and its value is Tsh 944,700,000 as on 1/07/2021. He submitted that he expected the Tribunal after receiving the information on the value of the subject matter, ought to advise the Respondent to go to the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. Ms. Mariam B.K. Sheilimoh learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the argument that the value of the subject matter is 944,700,000 is baseless, for the argument that a valuation report dated 1/07/2021 has never been tendered before the Tribunal. She submitted that the second witness for the Respondent has never stated that the value of the suit property is 944,700,000, rather this witness stated its value is depending on the development occurred in the premises. It is true that when PW2 was under cross examination, he stated that a valuation report dated 1/07/2021 depict the suit property is valued Tsh 944,700,000. Section 33(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R.E. 2019, provide. Thejurisdiction conferred under subsection(1)shaii be iimited- (a) in proceedings for the recovery of possession of immovabie property, to proceedingsin which the vaiue ofthe property does not exceed three hundred miiiion shiiiings' Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded without jurisdiction to determine the matter which its value is over and above the pecuniary limit of the Tribunal. Arguably the order appealed against was somehow interlocutory. However, it is my opinion that justice demand intervention by this Court to remedy the situation. This is because, upon the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal having been brought to the attention of this Court, I cannot turn a blind eye on such an irregularity. In the case of Adelina Koku Anifa and Another vs Byarugaba Alex, Civii Appeal No. 46 of 2019, CAT at Bukoka, at page seven, the apex Court commented, 'It is certain therefore, that where the iower court may have not observed the demands ofany particuiar provision ofiaw in a case, the Court cannot justifiabiy dose its eyes on such giaring iiiegaiity because it has duty to ensure proper appiication of the iaws by the subordinate courts and/or tribunais. Since the second appeiiate courtin the present case did not address the anomaiy which was pointed out by the advocate for the appeiiant, we have duty to address and determine thatpoint as raised' In Adelina Koku (supra) at page seven the Court of Appeal cited the case of Marwa Mahende vs Republic[1998]T.L.R. 249, where at page 253 the apex Court ruled, 'The duty ofthe courts is to appiy andinterpret the iaws ofthe country. The superior courts have additionai duty of ensuring 4 proper application of the iaws by the Courts beiow. In the instantcase this Courtispointing outthatthe correctprocedure as sanctioned by iaw i.e. Section 226(2)^ as construed hereinbefore^ was not followed, and that this should be put right. We think that it was not oniy proper for this Court to adopt that course, but that the Court had a duty to do so...' I therefore invoke general powers of supervisory under the provisions of section 43(l)(a) and (b) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R.E. 2019, reverse the decision of the Tribunal and quash the proceedings therein. I direct for the parties to file the suit in the appropriate registry of competent jurisdiction. The appeaU No order for costs. O 4^/ H E.B L^VANDA ^UDGE W07/2024 Judgment delivered in the presence of Mr. Abdul Aziz learned Counsel for Appellant also holding brief for Ms. Mariam B.K. Sheilimoh learned Counsel for the Respondent. O E.B. LUVANDA H JUI>GE 30//07/2024 >f