BUILDERS DEPOT LIMITED SCANNED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND REVISION NO. 15641 OF 2024 (Arising from the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for I/aia in Land Application No 337of2021 and 90 of2024) BUILDERS DEPOT LIMITED........................................... APPLICANT VERSUS RICHARD JAMAL NDANSHAU.......................................................... 1stRESPONDEN BWATA MSAFIRI RUWA..................................................................2ndRESPONDENT FATMA J. GOBA.................................................................................... 3rdRESPONDEN FARID JUMAA.......................................................................................4thRESPONDEN RAHMA JOHN..................................................................................... 5thRESPONDEN ALLY MALIMA................................................... 6th RESPONDENT 1 RULING lffh & 77" September,2024 L.HEMED, J, This is an application for revision preferred under section 43(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap. 216 R.E 2019] and section 2(3) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Act [Cap. 358 R.E2019]. The Applicant seeks for an order that Land Applications No. 337 of 2021 and 90 of 2024 be revised on account of declaring the first respondent as owner of plot No. 78 Block K, Kariakoo, Hala, Dar es Salaam in a preliminary objection. The application has been supported by the affidavit of Mr. Frank Aloyce Mayo, the principal officer of the Applicant. The respondents contested the application by filing counter affidavits. They also filed notice of preliminary objections. The 1st Respondent had the following points: - "(a) that the application is bad in law for being filed out of time. (b) That the Applicant has no locus standi. (c) The Application at hand is an omnibus." The 2nd Respondent also had the following points of objections: - 2 "(1) That the Application is misconceived and bad at law before this court. (2) That the Application is an abuse of the Court process." Both, the preliminary objection and the application were heard simultaneously by way of written submissions. All submissions were promptly filed pursuant to the orders of this court. Mr. Samson Mbamba, learned advocate acted for the Applicant. The respondents enjoyed the legal service of Mr. Mnyira Abdallah, Ms. Ester Nyalada and Octavian Francis Mzee, learned advocates. I have to start with the preliminary objection on the time limitation of the application. I have gone through the submissions in respect of this point, in fact, the counsel for the 1st Respondent has asserted that the prayer to revise the records and proceedings of application No.337 of 2021 is time barred since the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal was delivered in 2021. He insisted that the application for revision of application No. 337 of 2021 ought to have been filed within 60 days pursuant to item 21 of part III of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act [Cap.89 R.E 2019]. Reliance was put on the decision of this court in Isack Lazaro & 4 3 Others vs Sarah Mikael, Land Revision No.ll of 2022 where it was stated that where the provision of law does not specify time limitation, then, its limitation is as specified under item 21 of part III of the schedule to the Law of Limitation Act. He called this court to dismiss the application for being time barred citing the decision in Pangolin Traders Limited vs National Insurance Corporation and Parastatal Sector Reform Commission, Commercial Case No. 32 of 2004. In reply thereof, Mr.Mbamba, learned advocate was of the view that the Applicant was not part to the proceedings in Application no. 337 of 2021. He paused a question that when do the sixty days of limitation would start to run against the Applicant? The learned counsel insisted that, the Applicant, having become aware of the decision on the 28th June 2024 and the application for revision having been filed on 8th July 2024, is not time barred. It was submitted further that, Land Application No.337 of 2021 was also referred by the trial chairman while determining Application No. 90 of 2024. In the view of the learned counsel for the Applicant, the instant application for revision of Application No.337 of 2021 is not time barred. He cited the decision of this court in Longututi Metishooki vs Godfrey 4 Melami, Land Revision No.6 of 2021 to substantiate his point that since the trial tribunal referred Application No. 337 of 2021 in the ruling in Application No.90 of 2024, the it cannot be time barred. I am at one with the counsel for the 1st Respondent that section 43(1) of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap.216 RE 2019] provides for the powers of this court to revise the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. However, the provision does not state the time frame within which an application for revision may be preferred. In fact, there is no provision in the said specific Act in respect to the time limit within which to lodge an application for revision. It is trite law that where the specific law is silent, then, the general law comes into play, in the instant matter, the Law of Limitation Act, [Cap.89 RE 2019]. Item 21 of Part III of the Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act(sz//ra) provides that "Application under the Civil Procedure Code, the Magistrates" Courts Act or other written law for which no period of limitation is provided in this Act or any other written law...sixty dayd'. This application therefore, is regulated by the Law of Limitation Act, under the item aforesaid and the time limit for this kind of application is sixty (60) days from the date of the impugned decision. 5 In the instantaneous matter, the Applicant is moving this court to revise records and proceedings involving Land Application No.337 of 2021 and Application No.90 of 2024. I have examined the proceedings of the two aforesaid applications and found that they are two distinct suits though on the same suit property. In Application No. 337 of 2021 one BASWATA MSAFIRI LUWA had sued FATMA JUMAA GOBA, FARID JUMAA, RAHMA JOHN and ALLY MALIMA on ownership of Plot No.78 Block K Kariakoo Area, Hala Municipality-Dar es Salaam. Likewise, Application No. 90 of 2024, was instituted by RICHARD JAMAL NDANSHAU suing FATMA JUMAA GOBA, FARID JUMAA, RAHMA JOHN, ALLY MALIMA and BWATA MSAFIRI LUWA claiming ownership of the same suit property. The said suit was disposed of by the ruling on the preliminary objection on regarding doctrine of estoppel, delivered on 27th June, 2024. The counsel for the Applicant argued that the prayer for revision in respect of Application no.337 of 2021 is not time barred because it has been referred in Application No.90 of 2024 citing the decision in Longututi Metishooki vs Godfrey Melami (supra). I have read the decision relied by the learned counsel for the Applicant and found it distinguishable from the circumstance of this matter. In the cited decision, 6 the Applicant sought for revision of execution and appeal proceedings that emanated from the decision of the Ward Tribunal. In the said authority, the proceedings for revision and that of appeal were related as their roots were founded from the same decision. In the instant matter, Application No.337 of 2021 and Application No.90 of 2024 are two distinct suits. This being the case, application for revision of the records and proceedings in respect of Application No.337 of 2021 is time barred. It cannot be entertained without the leave of the court. The counsel for the applicant lamented that the sixty days rule cannot apply to the Applicant because she was not a party to the said two applications before the trial tribunal. I have gone through the whole of the Law of Limitation Act, I could not find any provision exempting persons who were not parties to the original proceedings from abiding to the time limitation. My understanding is that, being not a party to the impugned proceedings may constitute a good cause for extension of time but, it cannot automatically exempt such person from the time limitation provided by the law. From the foregoing, it is obvious that, application for revision of records and proceedings of the trial tribunal in respect of Application No.337 of 2021 is hopelessly time barred. Section 3 of the Law of Limitation Act, 7 requires matters found to be time barred to be dismissed. This was insisted by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Consolidated Holding Corporation vs. Rajan Industries & Another, Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2003, where it stated thus: - "Once a defence of limitation is accepted, the suit has to be dismissed." In light of the above authority, I have no option other than to dismiss the prayer for revision of records and proceedings of Application No.337 of 2021. The next question is, can the court proceed to revise the records and proceedings of Application No.90 of 2024. There is no dispute that, the prayer in respect of Application No.90 of 2024 is not time barred, however, it has been mingled with the prayer which is time barred. This takes me to the point of objection that"... The Application at hand is an omnibus." The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent was of the view that the prayers to revise proceedings of Application No.90 of 2024 and Application No.337 of 2021, by nature cannot be delt together because they are unrelated. He prayed the court to strike it out citing the decision of this court 8 in Thomas David Kirumbugo & Another vs Tanzania Telecommunication Co. Ltd, Civil Application No.l of 2005. In response thereto, the learned advocate for the Applicant asserted that the current position allows combination of prayers in one application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Reliance was put on the decision in Tanzania Knitwear Ltd vs. Shamshu [1989] TLR 48. I am on the same page with the learned counsel for the Applicant that combining prayers in one application is permissible under our law. However, such combination should involve prayers which are compatible. In the instance case, it is quite obvious that the prayer for revision has combined two different proceedings which are not related. The prayer for of the proceedings in respect of Application No.337 of 2021 is time barred as opposed to the prayer in respect to Application No.90 of 2024. The prayer or application that combines unrelated impugned records, proceedings or order is an omnibus application which is bad in law. Prayers which are unrelated or incompatible should not be presented in one application. In the instant matter, the prayer for revision of the records, proceedings or orders in respect of Application No.337 was to be preceded 9 by an application for extension of time to present it. Therefore, it could in no way be combined with the prayer to revise proceedings of Application No.90 of 2024. In that regard, I find the point of omnibus application holding water in respect of Application No.90 of 2024. Having found merits in the two points analyzed herein above. I find no need to determine the remaining limbs of objection as by so doing will have only an academic impact. In that regard, I proceed to make the following orders:- 1. The prayer for revision to the extent of the records and proceedings of the trial Tribunal in Application No.337 of 2021 is dismissed for being time barred; 2. The prayer for revision to the extent of records and proceedings of the trial Tribunal in regard to Application No.90 of 2024 is hereby struck out for being incompetent; and 3. The 1st and 2nd respondents are entitled costs. Order accordingly. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 17th September, 2024