image4917

image4917

The application for revision is misconceived and incompetent as it emanates from an interlocutory order barred by section 43(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act; further, the DLHT lacks jurisdiction over Land Application No. 67 of 2018 due to the involvement of a local government authority after the 2020 amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

Citation
image4917
Parties
Applicant: Ally Said Mussa; 1st Respondent: Godwin Amaniel Malleo (Administrator of Estate of late Mashauri Saiye); 2nd Respondent: Dorah Amaniel Malleo (Administratix of Estate of late Mashauri Saiye); 3rd Respondent: Morogoro Municipal Council
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
1 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Land Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision and Jurisdiction
Outcome
application struck out for being misconceived and incompetent; proceedings in Land Application No. 67 of 2018 quashed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Revision of Tribunal Ruling, Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Government Proceedings
Source Language
English
Land Law Civil Procedure Local Government Law Revision of Tribunal Ruling Jurisdiction Interlocutory Orders Government Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ally Said Mussa

Applicant

Godwin Amaniel Malleo (Administrator of Estate of late Mashauri Saiye)

1st Respondent

Dorah Amaniel Malleo (Administratix of Estate of late Mashauri Saiye)

2nd Respondent

Morogoro Municipal Council

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether revision lies against interlocutory orders under section 43(2) of Land Disputes Courts Act
  2. 2 Whether District Land and Housing Tribunal has jurisdiction over proceedings involving local government after amendment to Government Proceedings Act

Ratio Decidendi

The application for revision is misconceived and incompetent as it emanates from an interlocutory order barred by section 43(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act; further, the DLHT lacks jurisdiction over Land Application No. 67 of 2018 due to the involvement of a local government authority after the 2020 amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

Court Disposition

application struck out for being misconceived and incompetent; proceedings in Land Application No. 67 of 2018 quashed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Application struck out
  • All proceedings in Land Application No. 67 of 2018 quashed