20121008 TZHC Mbeya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ) (LAND DIVISION) AT MBEYA LAND APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2012 (From the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Pungwe District at Tukuyu in Land Case No.31 of 2010); BEFORE: A. J. MAJENGO- CHAIRMAN F30"ITFACF MASLTKA ................................... APPELLANT VERSUS MKURUGENZ1 MTENDAJI HALMASHAURI YA. RUNGWE............................................RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 4/10 &. 3/10f2012 The appellant, Boniface Masuka, a primary teacher by profession, cum businessman., sued the respondent, The Executive Director, Rungwe District Council, atthe District Land and Houlsing Tribunal, sitting at Tukuyu, in Rungwe District, over a business stall number 5 situate at Tandale Market in Tukuyu Township. Each, asserted title to the business stall. The District Land and Housing Tribunal decided in favour of the respondent. The 1 appellant felt aggrieved, hence, this appeal, basically on five grounds. Briefly, the appellant told the trial tribunal that he purchased a piece of land at Tandale market, whereby in 2005, he constructed the business hut in question. The land was sold to him by the land officials of the respondent. There were no strings attached to the sale. However, in 2009 :, the respondent demanded from him rent for the business stall. The appellant declined to pay the respondent the rental charges and maintained that there was no tenancy relationship between himself and the respondent over the business stall. However, the appellant witness, Francis Msirikasi, PW2, narrated a clifferen t version, which tallied the respondent's case. In fact, PW2 is employed by the respondent as a. topographer. According to PW2, the Rungwe District. Council allocated pieces of land along the market to prospective developers. They were to • construct-business huts for which they would DC exempted froth payment of rental. charges for a period of four years. After the elaps of the grace period of four years, they would be subjected to payments of rental charges. . V According to PW2, the plot in dispute was allocated to Alex Bonfae;-The said Alex BonifaceVis the son of the appellant. The record at the land office reveals that the land in question •was assigned to Alex Boniface. PW2 further contended that Alex Boniface, who was 18 on 19 years of age, has passed away. 2 4 The appellant did not dispute these facts. That being the ) position, the proceedings at the trial tribunal, were therefore, tainted with legal irregularity, which was quite fatal, in that the appellant had no capacity to sue the respondent. In other words, the appellant had no right to commence these proceedings. He had no right in the piece of land, that had. been breached. This is because the in question was not his. It belonged to his son, Alex, who has expired. It was only the administrator of the estates of the deceased., Alex, who could have sued the respondent. There was no evidence that the appellant was appointed the administrator of the estates of his son, Alex Boniface. In the circumstances, the trial tribunal should have held that the appellant was not mandated, in law, to sue the respondent-. For the reasons that the appellant had no locus standi to sue the respondent, I wi]!, consequently, allow the appeal, quash the proceedings of the trial, tribunal and. set aside the orders made. In the circumstances of this ca it is inappropriate to award costs, Eac' bear its own costs/fr/f S VdKARUA DATED,AT 8October2O12, Appearances: For the appellant: Present in person For the respondent: Ms Gloria Mlimba 3