binti paziaddija ramadhan vs sylivester w mkama 2014 tzhc 2113 11 april 2014

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2012 BINT PAZI....................................................................... APPELLANT (ADDIJA RAMADHANI) V SYLIVESTER W. MKAMA................................................RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order 26/2/2014 Date of Ruling 11/4/2014 A.Shangwa. J This is an appeal against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Coast Region at Kibaha in Land Application NO. 5 of 2009. It is due for judgment today but I have realised that the mandatory procedure for filing appeals originating from District Land and Housing Tribunals to the High Court which is laid down under the Land Disputes Courts Act, 2002 was not followed by learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Stevens Kozi Madulu. Upon realising so, I have decided not to determine this appeal on merit and give Judgment as ordered by this Court on 5th November, 2013. Instead, I have decided to strike it out on grounds of having been filed unprocedurally. The procedure for filing appeals originating from the decisions of the District Land and Housing Tribunals to the High Court is laid down under S. 38 (2) and (3) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, 2002 which provides as follows and I quote “S. 38 (2) Every appeal to the High Court shall be by way o f petition and shall be filed in the District Land and Housing Tribunal from the decision, or order o f which the appeal is brought/' 3 S. 38 (3) Upon receipt o f a petition under this section, the District Land and Housing Tribunal shall within fourteen days dispatch the petition together with the record o f the proceedings in the Ward Tribunal and the District Land and Housing Tribunal to the High Court” Please note that the above mentioned quotation of the wording in S. 38 (2) and (3) of the Act incorporates the amendment of Section 2 of the Act by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2010 in which the term High Court (“Land Division)” was deleted wherever it appears in the Act and substituted with the term “High Court” see S. 19 (a) and (b) of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 2010. In this case, Counsel for the Appellant filed his appeal by way of a Memorandum of Appeal instead of a petition and it 4 was filed straight in the High Court instead of being filed in the District Land and Housing Tribunal. In view of the fact that this appeal was filed contrary to the mandatory requirement of Law, I have no alternative but to strike it out which I hereby do with costs. ^ % r v ^A.Shangwa. 3fe&&ks4LX!9i *iJUDGE V 11/4/2014 si / Delivered in open Court in the presence of Mr. Madulu for Appellant holding brief for Mr. Chamriho Counsel for the R e s p o n d e n t v ' o " ’ 01,4" v f I& -.J JUDGE \ 4 ijp « ¥11/4/2014 ‘V f \y ^ 'V ' i **£<=!« +