ally shabani kilima vs patric s lupokela 1997 tzhc 208 27 february 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIV. CAUSE NO.78/1986 ALLY SHABANI KILIMA... ....... ..... APPLICANT Versus PAKRICK S. LUPOKELA.... ....... RESPONDENT R U L I N G KYANDO. J : This is'an application for the prerogative orders of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition in respect of the deci­ sion of the President to revoke a right of occuparcy comprised in certificate of Occupancy No. 186255/63. The application is by Chamber Summons supported by an affidavit of the appli­ cant ep.d accompanied by a statement as usual. The statement does not show the grounds for the application although the affidavit in support shows them to be denial of natural justi­ ce, in that the applicant was not heard before the revocation was made, fraud and failure to show good cause for the revoca. tion. The respondent, the Director for Lands apposes the application and he has filed a counter-affidavit. He states in the counter-affidavit that the revocation was made for good Cc.use (non-payment of land rents) and that notices of intention to revoke were sent to the applicant but there was no response from him. In para 5 of the Statement it is stated that the applicant asked to be furnished with a copy Containing the decision to revoke his right of occupancy ’ 'but a certain S.M. Watuta refused to furnish him with the samei!. It is stated that instead he was given a mere letter, annexed to the statement as Annex. TE'. In paragraphs 3, 6 and 9 of tbe_.counter . affidavit the respondent states:- "3. TheQ|Statement in para 1 of the affi­ davit ( /Ally Shabani Kilima filed herein) is admitted save that Ally Shabani Kilima is no longer entitled to possession of the said piece of iand since his right of occu- pancy over the same was revoked on the 19th 2 g February, 1985, as evidenced by annex'ture ’A* and ,B I , »• 6. The statement in par a 4 is admitted save that the letter dated 10.5.1985 signed by one P . Mturu was written without autho­ rity from the Director and letter with reference number LD/93289/ll/SMW dated 21.3.06 was rainscons toned in the sense that grounds for revocation contained in the memorandum and instrument of revocation hereby annexed and marked ’ A r and ’ C ’. 9. P a r a 7 and 8 are denied. Two notices with reference numbers LD/932289/l/MSKK of 10,12.1983 and LD/93289/1/MSKK of 25.2.82 respectively were served to Kilirna to show cause as to why his right of occupancy should not be revoked and none of these notices was acknowledged by the said Kilirna." Now, Annexetures ’A ’ and »B* m e n t i o n e d in P a r a 3 above has not been annexed to the counter-affidavit. Nor is annexture ’C* mentioned in para 6 or copies of the notices mentioned in P a r a 9 above been annexed. As seen the applicant says he was not supplied with a copy of the instruments revoking his right of occupancy and n o n e has Deen filed. It therefore becomes impossible to determine the application, the basic evidentrary documents are lacking . It is ever impossible to decide whether the revocation complained of was actually made or not. What is to be done? I have, as X hereby do, to direct the respondent to supply the applicant with a copy of the document revoking his right of •ocupancy so that he can annex it to the statement or aifictavit in support. The respondent too is also directed to annex to the c ounter­ affidavit the missing annexture s referred to in para 3 and 6 of the counter-affidavit. /3 also to annex copies fh- .. mv_ • — u^- uencxoned in p a r a 9 th is ^ L “ t ad 1 t amendmSnt 0 f PaPei'S ° ir " hC ap- l i c a t i ^ and fo 1“ s‘-nLed t0 sides, m e n The matter is to come m3 h LS1° n " 0lth8r by mySSlf or b>' othOT J u ^ e . The ' respondent is to conroly witn th- d - — fi - ■ - u " h i m wi i-Viv, +i ‘ “ caiUil& maae h e rein against l U 'ln tnree weeks *rom the date of this ruling l .a .a . k y a n d o JUDG E_ 4.2.97; Co r a m ; Kyando, J F o r the applicant - absent, not notified. P o r the respondent- Mr. Salula, SSA. s ^ t : r lie a n t ls o b sa n t’ ru iin * °n i 3 -2- 97- » » i S to L.A.A. KYAllDG 1 3 .2 .9 7 = £ Jyss Coram ; Kyando, J For the applicant - absent, not seCved. F o r the respondent- absent. , R u l i n g a date to be liULnie-a n o t i f i ^ oy m- trie registrar ^ ?s T h a v e to return to Dodoma. L „ A 0a.« i\ l A U D O JJD G E 14.2.97... 1 3 .2 ^ . P a r t i e s - ^ a b s e n t ? 211* 0 ”* > H/C ORD&Rj - Judgement on 2 7 . 9 97 -d ^ t t '* x QJ- l.o be n o x i f i e d . MA^'SNTO, SDR. 1 4 .2 .9 7 . 4 m z i s n . p am . A.^v, M a n e n t o , SDR- F/r P r e s e n t in p erson for the 1 - v • M r s Nr'r—'i or tne applicant, C /C . L a i? ” r tn e r e s P ° ^ e n t . COURT: - T he ruliftg i s read before th onrLies today, 27th February, 1997. A . R . MANivtfTO SDR. 27/2/1997.