20080822 TZHC Dodoma

r•- 4 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DODOMA MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2006 AI1.A'A SAID NKOLO1A ................................. .APPLI CAN'!' VERSUS WIKANGULU INVESTMENT CO. LTD ............. RESPONDENT RULING Chinguwile, J. • The Applicant filed an application for enlargement of time to file his appeal. However the application was objected to by the Respondent who raised one point of preliminary objection to the following effect: 1. There being no law allowing appeals to the High Court, Land Division from former Housing Tribunals the present application is incompetent: The objection was argued by way of written submissions. The Respondent submitted that there is no law which allows appeals from the defunct Housing Appeals Tribunals to the High Court Land Division as such provision was repealed. The Respondent argued that, since the Land disputes Courts Act did not provide any new provision allowing such appeals this court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain this application. The Responding to this, to quote his own words, the applicant submitted that "that Respondent has all along been swaying the courts of law through legal technicalities that ultimately have led to a confusion in this matter" It was alleged that, since the Respondent had previously argued that with the establishment of the High Court Land Division, an ordinary High Court can not entertain land matters, he can not be heard submitting that this court lacks jurisdiction. The applicant asserted that the application is properly before the court and that this court has jurisdiction because it has stepped into the shoes of the High Court under the new system. In rejoinder the Respondent countered the applicant's submission that they had swayed the court. He insisted that there is no law which provides for appeals emanating from the defunct Housing Appeals Tribunal to this Court. After hearing the submissions by both learned Counsels, I am in agreement with the Respondent's submission. This court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain this application. As correctly pointed out by the Respondent, the root of this . application is the decision of the defunct Housing Appeals Tribunal which came to an end, when the whole piece of legislation titled the Rent Restrictions Act No. 17 of 1984 was repealed. I have read the cited law that is Written Laws Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2005 and am of the firm opinion that; the Rent Restriction Act, No. 17 of 1984 was repealed without saving any of its provisions. This means section 43 of the Rent Restriction Act, does not exist any where in our statutes. This being the case, one can not challenge the decision of the repealed tribunal, because the repealed statute did not provide any outlet for appeals emanating from decisions of the Rent Restriction Act. That said, this preliminary objection has merit, I therefore uphold it. The application is hereby dismissed with costs. A.F.Chiwi1 JUDGE 22/8/2008 22/8/2008 Coram: A. F. Chinguwile, Judge For Applicant - Mr. Kidumage For Respondent - Mr. Nyabiri CC: A. Mwaka 3 'Order: Ruling delivered in the presence of Mr. Kidumage Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Nyabiri for the Respondent. A.F. Chinguwile JUDGE 22/8/2008 \ 4