19911231 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COu.iiT OF TiJTZii.NIA CIVIL iL'~··EAL NO~ 47 0F 199'.) AN~CLET ABI1.. S GUND A ••••••. ! ·1~:i.':2EL:.-:J\N'.JJ. versus AlfW AR .b..LIKH.AN IQBAR .ALIKHAN ·-·~•-•t••··· -.. \ t ~ RS2L.'0HDENT . KHADIJ A I. KHAN l i. tTUL GEI1ENT This is an aJveel _Bgainst the <ie,,isicn u:f the Morogo:,o Dist:,iot Court. Be.fore the said court J.NWii.Il l1LIKHAN (h·e:rein a!ter to be ref erred as t-he first r•Js;;cnd ent) instituted pro•eedtngs ae;ainst ..AHACLET 1~3L~S GUNDA(herein aft.~r to be. ::,eferred ,as the appellant) e;nd. IQB~';,R ALIKHJ1.W together· with. . KHADIJA I." KHAN (hereincfter t~) ·be ref0rred as the aeoond and third respondents respectively)o It is c1rnm0n t";r0und that the first resJondent in the suit before -the court of first instauce sc,ught inter alia • that the pUFported sole -~f u t_·_;use on Plot l~o. f; Mge:ia Minor setlement, Morogoro by the secant third responden~e to the a~pellant as v0id abinito~ It is furtb~r not in dispute that the first resyonclent ·is t:he ~lder brothe:i, of th~se eeoond l'E·a.vondent and that he is t-he sop of the -.hfrd res}:ionde~t., It is also common ground ttat the house whieh ;: is the·subje~t matter in the inetont pr~oeeein~s belonged to one .ALIKE.AN J.Jll,lliL KIUN who di~d s:.Hnr:::time in ·1978 •. The said deoeased was the father oj both the first and second res;ivnc.enta bu'l1 was the husband of i;he third resp·ondent. It is also oommon 6 r0und that the stiid sale was c1cne on No'fember 3 ,. 1902. The trial District Coµrt held inter a~ia that the said · sale offe!1ded the provisi<:ms · of se:)ti . .;ns 67 and 6n o:! the ...•.• /2 . , 2 Land ReL:istration Ordinance ( Cn}I 334) prir:cipally on the ground thEJt at the time ;;;f the sr:1~c sGle the cieceased, ALIKHAN .AEMED KHAIT, was the re:;istered owner 0f the house_ in question. As neither the seC(!nG n~r the third 1esJondenta . . were rei;;istere(1 as the le 6 al pers::mcl r:;;p:i;-eseptative t.tiey .- could n6t sispose _of tne :.,ai<.1 ;.;roperty. The ,learned °hl'ri.~1·. lady maftistrate !,Jund the said sole V')id un~:er section· 10 of the oontra,)t Ordinance ( cay. 4:33). The loa:,ned · trial . Resident Mo~istrate 1urther held the s~id ~r~~erty ~as Wlcler i,eJistered land and that as tbe consent oi•th~ Commission,..::r for Lands vrn::i not. obtained prior to the s~le 1he .said sale was in overative and not enforoeabl~ ae it offended liegulation 3(1) o~ the Land .£\egu;J,.~t'ions 1940 in 1anzan:ta, . · Having so tnunc1 an1.~ held, the trial magistrate was· satis~ fied t·hat 'the a;;i.pellant had ;,iaid. the second and third respondent, , she.2C0,0.J0/= as purchase pri~e; the only :r'emed~ available for .. the appellant was t:.: be. refunder: the said ::wnies. ·· ·He fµ,rt,heJ' . ordered th·at the first resJ:mdent sh.culd . qompensate -the 81)pell.ani ~- for the W1 cxhaus·ted improve:nents and the essessment should be · done by a G-:.,:ve!'nment valuer. ~,he aypella.nt! s av~Jeal is e:n the :0:.4-owing main gro·und•~- "l, Th:-:~-', the H-JnJuratle msgis.t:itate e.i'r·ea in law in hblding that the ;.ilem·i:ier-a jf th-a .:'..!:IXH.,:J{l:6 f&:miiy havin.,; reoei v~.d their share that i ~ was not imough to make the sale of the he;use c-n I-lot No. ·5 Mget~ lei;ul .• 2. Thc1t the H:Jn0urable ResE'.ent M:a::.;istrate erred in law in holdin£ thal s8le was etc1trary to section 67 and 6G of the Land Regi~trati~r orain~n~e end therefore void un6er section lt oi the law of Contra9t Ordinanoe~ J. ·. i.'hei~ the Honc.,urable ResL:.ent Ac'),;:.strate erred in law 'in holding -that no memlH:r ·:·f the ia:::iily had p~oved ~o dispose the hauee en flat N0. 5 Mgeta on the Jnly reasJn that there ~ere no lettey~ o± Administration of ~h~ astate. 4. That the Hor.cura'ule Resic.;ent Mat:istrate e·rrea· in law in ~ol<1ing that there wr.s n~) c;:;nsent of the Land Officer~ '5. That the H:.,nourable .i.,esi,':ent }~t<:'istrete erred in law in holdin~ that the sale ~f ~he buit i:,remises was tllilawfu.L 6. That the Hrmourable Resident Mo;istrate erred in law ~n holdin~ that'the o~vellant ~ould not have relL:1 i:1 speci.fi.:; perf·.,rman ..-:e out by Wc.Y of damageso Befor0 me the ayyell·ant 's case wBs ad·y ·) .·ated by Mr. Xashumbugu who subst::ntiall.v 1ontenJed ~h&t !his o)urt should 1 4 no-v allu\'f- the first rc·si.ioncteht t-:. . evr'C:e effc ... ting the anti- eipated t?ansfe:D .1ormali 4:-ies hen :,e on .Jrc.-e·.• f ;r s~e.:,ific p&.rf 0rmanee ,, He further o.,ntenC ec1 7hct rt:,les 24 Elnd ?~ ·and ae<.ition 11 of the :'rob8te nnd Acimir:.istrnti )h Ordinan~e werG in applicable in the instan~ case as no administra~or had· been appointee: in respect uf J:he estc;tc ,,f the deceased· one Mr.. .,i.LL(HAN AHMETJ KI11lli ii - Mr. Kes8.:.d.e,:, the leccned adv oc~-:,e __· J !."' the fil'st reSp(,ndent, with great ability, vii:;cUI' and incenr.. iti~ .i ttacked the ()Omplaints raioed against the decisiJn o~ the tri2J. ~istri6t aourt !irst and foremost he c0ntendet that it was w~cng ~o join the iirst r~Sl)Qndenili ,.,,ri th the f,)rementi~Jned co-res~,-::mjenta. · He thus argued ther•.:: was a tni.5 j o:l.nd er c,f ap;;,ellaats in i,he abseno.e I o:! any ap:.;ilioo.tion to this -. ')Urt. In SU)J;C,rt ,)f this proportioJ'l he re:Oerrcd the OJurt to :b.e ~rinoi,i;Jle L~id out in AHMED BJ!i, AHMED. KASLIM KUSASS v. SYE:ij ABJ;ULLA FA:. B .I: (19~B) 1Ui. 60 . at p. 63 1see para G to H). Nexty he submitted that the ~~11·trRc~ between the appellant ana the se~ond anJ third resp)r..Cents wcs ~;oid unc:e·r ~·eotion . 23(1) (b) -1f th~ Law o:f c,)11-':.r.c~o-t for n~;n cc;mplianr>~ ' f section· ll and HulGS 24 anc ·29 o:" the :i.>:1:')lJ,.lte ar.:.a ..;~,.,;dnia~rcfbion ·0:i,dinance, 1961. Corni_ni~ to grr,u,ncls relatine, to fai.J 1re to rJ.1.Jtain the requisite 0cnsent of 'ihe Cc,t:H:1issioner :f ·:-r: Lands. Mr. :Kesaria u~ged thi~ 00urt tu iollow inter ali~ i~e aecision of the ck urt N1Tiiiw013FFElEnES.fU.fi?E. LT:T) • . A.N:;·i JTI~RS. -v. UNITED -ENGINEERING WORKS LTJ . .dEi J .AGSEN SING lraN2.7.C ~- Cit~·; AJr;.-. .No .15 of 19:30 ARUSHA REGISTRY (inreported)o .. I . 4 ·, Laatly, he submitted tha-: Si;8Ci:'.i(i veri:-;rmanne is an equitable remedy. It can n:::t 'thus te ::.nvGked if \he sale transaoti ..,n was ·void nb ,;\n:Lt:r2_;:~ He thus ur:::;ed the a:n,eal to be dis □ issed with oc£ts. I new hm1 e ~CJ o-JnsiC.:er h:)•.,,1 the ar;;.;uments ~..,y beth learhed ooµnae.l :anJ author:!. ties c·1 ~ea sh::..u1(1 -~e U).i.Jlied tG the: i}iirts of the present case. I mus-6' cc,n:fess that: f.1r a c'·Jn~i(.erable lengh of time I was o:! th.e sc.liG v:.ew that Rer;ul01iun "- o!· . ·. ;: the Land Regulations 194/J wbiDn mcy t,e atusec: by unstir,Wt.lou,s sellers sh0uld not be us ~d to e:eZea-t'i ustice 1::.h~~ cause unt:;ld worship h·.:-inest and bcna±iide purchas e1•s i r,.1t a sec..: n~ re:1n.:-'llotio11 and upon a ccfeful and s:•be:r reocing of a l~ng time of au1.nori ty dealing with die.~)osi tiofi b:f fl Right of occa1)an,.-y par1ioularly ·where c.::nseht of the j_">;esiclent . sr t.he C·Jm;·.issi:.mer of Lands . fo-i- that m:.,.tter' is· iadkin~. In view ::;f t'.:ie ;,rinoiple reite?'ated in: :N!TIN • S dose ( s~p±'a) which I enti:::-eiy ng:."ee and which I have adopted c1S my o·wn I ~ti r:f the settlec: yL~w that "one can not at;·:~k- to, .j:4to.t,7J ~t.--~ wh.!.."lb· _};\~ ~~~n 0;1lJ: -,stablish by relyi~~ , on a traits :.:1op,io1i d.~clarec1 by 1 to be ine 0~rati Vi 11 • .I fut~~:r 18W adop-v ·thd Jrinoiple that 11 land h ~ld und~~ a right o!ccoupc:td.!Jt / is not a f:caely c1is;Jorah:.e or mo-r.ketal;le oomI:1odi tv like a til' Q ·.,_ !fil:• . Its disposal is subj,)ct "!io the conaent of. the superior·· and paramount lanulo'.fd as JrovHted fer 5n the "".'elev ant Land . 4 ' . Regulations" ( Tho e:n;;,haais i.9 mine)~ Ir.~ the instant i.>ase t~e land in qu1,sti011 is e,overn !id by Re,:ula-Wibn 3 of 1,he said Land Re;;·•la"iions 194G. · I am satisfi~d that the trial lear~ed magistrate had f;:)'1:'rectlJ aodressed her mind on the facts and the law £OVe1tn'iag the matt.3r. He:f de,..,ision -:.an not therefore be faulted. As on this score al::me its en,2.;ough to dispose of this a:;ipeal I cio not .fint the nece.ssity to com.men"J on the other grounds veryably ari,uec1 anc: ur;ec-1 wi tb ;re~11 vigour by Mr. · 0 Kesa:via the learned n~unsel. · -..... ·.. /5 In the fj_nal _am~lysis therefc,,re 1 nm f0und to disallo)'.': '\the appeal and uphold the decision of the'triul District Court in its entirety. Having reGar~ ta the lsn~ histo~y :r.f tn:t.3 o:tse part,ies shoulcJ bear their own cr;s·1:s~ DATE:J at DAR ES SALAAM this 31st day of Jeoember, 1991. 31/12/91 Court: Judc1n0ni' delb1 e:':'ed. in the }.):'C:S,~I,,., ::, ol :it::·" ..i{ashumbugU jar ~he app9llant then f!rst aJl 3ec~nd respo~denta are present in Je~s0~~ ~T, ;; ., MKWAWA JUDG~ ~1/ 7 ,;/,1 C-- I ,._c.. I CElZTil"Y ·:riii.T THI8 IS THE THU:B CJ:->': vF '.L'EE 0RIGilJAL., •