Palangyo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT PAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO.160 OF 2023 ANITHA M. PALANGYO......................................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS ALLY HEMED JUMA......................................................................... 1stDEFENDANT KINONDONI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL............................................. 2ndDEFENDANT THE COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS................................................ 3rdDEFENDANT THE REGISTRAR OF TITTLES......................................................... 4thDEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.............................................................. 5thDEFENDANT JOHN WILLIAM MAKORI............................................................... 6thDEFEDNANT

RULING Date of Last Order: 12.08.2024 Date of Ruling: 04.09.2024 T.N. MWENEGOHA, J This Ruling follows an objection on admission of documents tendered by PW1, Micah Somi Pallangyo, during the hearing of the case, on the 12th August, 2024. Advocate Godwin Anthony Fisoo, for the 1st defendant insisted in his arguments in favour of the objection that, these documents cannot be admitted as they are copies not original documents and have no foundation. His arguments were supported by Advocate Lucy Kimario for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants. i On the other hand, Advocate Emmanuel Marwa for the plaintiff, insisted, the documents should be admitted as the same are for identification purposes to prove that the plaintiff worked at the National Service. Further, the same are copies because they are correspondences meant for office use only. In their rejoinder, the defendants' counsels, Mr. Fisoo and Advocate Kimario, reiterated their submissions in chief. I have considered the submissions of the parties, for and against the objection. The issue at hand is whether the objection has merits or not. The major arguments by the defendants' counsel against the admission of these documents are that, they are copies and not original documents. The said arguments were countered by the plaintiff's counsel that, these documents are for identification purposes only to prove that, the

plaintiff once worked at the National Service. Further that, some of them are correspondences, therefore the plaintiff cannot have the original documents as the said correspondences were between offices. Also, the 2nd reason against admission of the documents in question is the fact that, they have no foundation. On this I agree with the defendants, these documents were not annexed in the pleadings save for a letter addressed to Land Commissioner, dated 19/7/1999, which was annexed as annexure 01 in the plaint. On records I have the documents titled a "List ofAdditional Document to be Retied upon by the Plaintiff" but the same does not show if the same was filed in this Court. Order XIII Rule (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap R.E 2002, provides " The parties or their advocates shall produce, 2 at the first hearing of the suit,, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely and which has not already been filed in court, and all documents which the court has ordered to be produced. (2) The court shall receive the document so produced provided that they are accompaniedby an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs". As I have said, the list on record do not show as to when the same was filed. Therefore, the documents in question cannot be admitted save for the annexed document

referred herein. The reason behind this Decision is the fact these documents lack the foundation of being in Court, they were neither pleaded nor filed as list of additional documents as provided here in above. Therefore, the objection has merits and it is sustained. The tendered documents are rejected, save for a letter addressed to Land Commissioner, dated 19/7/1999, annexed as annexure 01 in the plaint. Ordered accordingly. 1 MWENEGOHA, JUDGE, 04/09/2024 3