ABUU KULINGANYA SCANNED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LAND DIVISION AT DAR-ES-SALAAM MSC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 19365 OF 2024 (Arising From the Execution Decree Of The High Court of Tanzania Land Division at Dar Es Salaam in Execution No 32 Of2020, Originating from Land Case No 171 Of 2014) BETWEEN ABUU HUSSEIN KULIGANYA............................... Ist APPPLICANT VERLUS JOHN MVEDA........................................... 2nd APPLICANT KASIMU JUMA....................................................... 3rd APPLICANT ARABI SHAIBU...................................................... 4th APPLICANT YASINI JUMA SHEMVUNI..................................... 5th APPLICANT GODFREY SENYAGWA........................................... 6th APPLICANT WILLIAM S. TEMBO...............................................7th APPLICANT VERSUS ASHURA MOHAMED SENG'ONDO...................... 1st RESPONDENT B.Y. SWAI (Trading as Kishe Auction Mart Limited).................................................................. 2nd RESPONDENT RAPHAEL MLOPE................................................ 3rd RESPONDENT 1 HASSAN SAID........... .......... 4™ RESPONDENT WEMA ISSA................................................................................. 5™RESPONDENT HAMIS MZEE................................................................................ 6thRESPONDENT SALUM IDD................................................................................. 7thRESPONDENT SELEMANI JUMANNE.................................................................8thRESPONDENT GULU HAMISI................ 9th RESPONDENT BAHABELA BAHABURA............................................................. 10thRESPONDENT JANUARY EUZEBYU MANDUMBWE.......................................... 11™RESPONDENT MASHIKU SHIJA....................................................................... 12™RESPONDENT MSEMAKWELI KUOYELWA....................................................... 13™RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 28/2/2025 Date of Ruling: 28/2/2025 LALTAIKA, J, The above-named applicants filed this application praying for the following orders/reliefs: 1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to investigate the ciaim/objection and examine the appiicant/ciaimant/objector as a true and bona fide owner of the suit land Un-suveyed land located at Kigezi Ward within liaia District in Dar es Salaam - Tanzania 2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to order wholly injunction of the said Execution of the case No: 32/2020 from attachment or lift the order attaching and selling the said suit land, 3. Incidental orders as the Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate to issue. I. Costs of this Application be provided for. 2 When the application was called for hearing today the Applicants and Respondents enjoyed the skillful legal services of Messrs. Saulo Jackson Kusakalah and Aroni Lesindamu learned Advocates, respectively. The Court Chamber was also packed with Applicants and the 1st Respondent. Mr. Kusakalah quickly stated that after reviewing the file and considering the court's advice, his clients had decided to withdraw the matter without costs to enable them to file a holistic suit that would conclusively resolve the conflict. In response, Mr. Lesindamu acknowledged that the application was not maintainable. He contended that the cited provisions, specifically Section 38(1) and Order XXI Rule 57(1) of the Civil Procedure Code RE 2019, were not appropriate legal mechanisms for achieving the Applicants' intended objective. He further pointed out that a judgment had already been delivered in Land Case No. 171 of 2014 on December 14, 2018, by Hon. A. Mohamed J. 3 While he had no objection to the withdrawal, Mr. Lesindamu prayed for costs, emphasizing that the Respondents had filed documents, and that the application should have been concluded earlier. In rejoinder, Mr. Kusakalah urged the court not to impose costs, emphasizing the need to foster good relations. He also asserted that previous cases were not relevant to the present matter, as the parties were not before the court for that purpose. Having carefully examined the record and the arguments presented by both learned counsel, it is evident that the application is not maintainable in law. The Applicants sought to invoke Section 38(1) and Order XXI Rule 57(1) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E. 2019] as a means to attain their objectives. However, this Court finds that these provisions do not provide a proper legal avenue for the relief sought by the Applicants. More significantly, the subject matter has already been conclusively determined in Land Case No. 171 of 2014, in which a judgment was delivered on 14th December 2018 by Hon. A. Mohamed, J. This judgment remains binding. It is therefore apparent that the present application, while now being withdrawn, was in essence closer to an abuse of the court process. Courts 4 exist to adjudicate disputes, not to entertain matters that have already been resolved to finality. The principle of finality in litigation must be upheld to prevent unnecessary delays, wastage of judicial resources, and uncertainty in legal relations. Parties must respect and abide by the decisions of the court, as doing otherwise undermines the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system. Notwithstanding these observations, the Court has also considered the Applicants' submission that they seek to foster good relations between the parties. Given the nature of the dispute and in the interest of promoting harmony, this Court finds that an order for costs, while legally justified, may not serve the broader goal of peaceful coexistence. The Court is therefore inclined to exercise its discretion and allow the withdrawal of the application without costs. I am inclined to state also albeit in passing that our discussion the Court chamber also entailed some advice to Counsel for both parties to ensure that no attempts are made to try to circumvent Court orders which remain valid unless and until they are overturned by a higher court. Parties have also been reminded of their duty to respect the rule of law and ensure they 5 understand the contents of applications filed in court on their behalf. It is in that context that I believe imposing cost would not be to the interest of the bigger picture approach adopted that led to the finalization of the proceedings. In the upshot, this application is hereby struck out with no order as to cost. It is so ordered. E.I. LALTAIKA JUDGE 28.02.2025 Court: Ruling delivered in Court Chambers in the presence of Messrs. Saulo Jackson Kusakalah and Aroni Lesindamu learned Advocates, Counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent respectively. 6