baretto hauliers t limited another vs mohamoud mohamed duale 2016 tzhc 2150 1 july 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (PAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY^ AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO..90 OF 2015 (Originating from Land Case No. 157 of 2012) 1. BARETTO HAULIERS (T) LIMITED.................. 1st APPLICANT 2. MOSES PAUL SOZIGWA................................ 2nd APPLICANT Versus MOHAMOUP MOHAMEP PUALE.............................. RESPONDENT, Date of Last Order: 31/05/2016 Date of Ruling: 01/07/2016 RULING FELESHI. J.: This Ruling emanates from an application made by way of Chamber Summons in terms of sections 5(1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [CAP. 141 R.E, 2002] and 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, [CAP. 216 R.E, 2002] for leave to a_ppeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against Judgment of the High Court by R.A. Teemba, J in Land Case No. 157 of 2012 dated 21st day of August, 2015 in which the suit was dismissed. The said Chamber Summons was supported by an affidavit sworn by one Samwel Shadrack, advocate stating albeit brief that, there are legal matters wanting address before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The application was scheduled to be heard by written submissions whereas parties complied with hence this Ruling. To argue for the application, the applicants engaged services of the M/S Upright Attorneys while the Page 1 of 3 respondent was represented by the M/S M.R.M. Lamwai & Company Advocates. Arguing for the prayers in the application, the applicants' counsel submitted that, leave of the High Court is of essence as the High Court misdirected herself in interpreting the applicability and effectiveness of the legal Power of Attorney and application for revocation. The rest goes to the merits of the intended appeal thus not falling within the mandate of this Court. In reply, the respondent's counsel submitted that, all what has been narrated by the applicants' counsel does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court for determination adding that, there was no misdirection in the High Court decision regarding revocation of the Powers of Attorney. The respondent's counsel urged t o the application to be dismissed with costs. •* » a 4 In rejoinder, the applicants' counsel submitted that, section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Actr (supra) does not require a preexistence of a point of law for the purposes of granting leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. He added that, the applicants have complied with the legal requirement to have their appeal heard by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. As correctly submitted by the applicants' counsel, in appeals to the Court of Appeal being first appeals, that is, matters originating from the High Court as well as second appeals, that is, matters originating from Resident/District Courts, the High Court is required to grant leave to be placed before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania for determination unlike Page 2 of 3 matters originating from Primary Courts where Certification on Point of Law is wanting for such points of law to be Certified for determination. Having considered the application and the respective submissions by counsels for the parties, this Court grants leave to the applicants to have their intended grounds of appeal placed before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania for determination. Considering the circumstances and nature of the matter under scrutiny, parties are ordered to bear for their own costs. Order accordingly. DATED at Dar es Salaam this 01st Day of July, 2016 Ruling delivered this 1st day of July, 2016 in the absence of the parties at 12:45 HRS. \ EM. FELESHI / / JUDGE / Page 3 of 3