19910405 TZHC Dar es Salaam

nr TIIE IDGII COUTIT OF TJINZ/lNIA AT ])Jill ES. S11.Lli.I.M CIVIL APPEAL po,. 20 OF 1920 n. L.11n-r.uS1iNDENDE,i. ,. • ~-U • •.• u • • .-• ., ~ o , ..... .,. • u.,; a • • • !JjELL.llNT ', :1 _ · vorsus · - .. . I ~ 1• 'imAf11i.ISIIA 11.!lD.!1.LL.till ,- 2. J hNE 1-IDil.GA )•-.o ••·• • • •, _. ••. • •• • • 1 • • .- • ,. • .r..ES PONDEI'JT JUDGMEIJT DAf!A.TI, J; This is m1 appeal by rr.L.M1-mscll1clondo ngainst tho juc"lcnont of the IIousing AppooJ.s ::i:Til:nmnl which quc1sh0d and sot r-.sido tho jucl,"'Llont of the Regional Housine Tribunnl. The facts ere that tho appollD..11t Mwasnnclonclo applied before tho Dar cs Snl8.t."'.Il RcJional IIousing 'l'Tihunal fdr vacant possc·ssion of his ' . house No.20 D:i,ook 40 Kinondoni kroa of Da.r cs Scl2.['J;l CiJGy.. The house was being occupied 1)y ,fo~ tenants. Tho ton ants rosistocl thq cla:i.n for .vacant possession· on the GTounds that no rcasonabzy oC(Uivalcnt aJ..torna.-: tivo a.cconraodati<>n had been offered by tho applicnnt lcncUord.•-- Two. tenants va.catec1 tho suit premises voluntarily 2nd only the two respondents Mwanai.sha A1)(1.allo.ll encl J nne Mbo.ce. were loft to resist tho application• . The Regional IJ.ous:i.ng Tribunal QTa.ntcd tho application for vacant possession• On appeal to tho IIousinG Appocls Trihunru. tho doaision of tho Regional IIo'W:ling Tribu.nol m1S reversed on tho gi-ouncls that no alternative accoomodaiion which is rcnson2,M.y equivalent to the suit prcr:iisos htil. 1Joon offered.. Tho Ilousing Appo2ls T:rilnmru. nxcuod thd oven tho clist~oo f'l'ora tho 111tornativo ·a.ccono.odation to the tenants' place of ~ork 2.11d to the City centre was a factor to l)o ti:i.lccn into n.ccount in docicli.ng whcthor such· n.ccomoda.tion was reasonably ec.[Uivalont to the suit prc□iscs. In his uom~nndun of 2.,ppoal, the appellant hr,s set out 6 rrrounds of appeal• Mr, livmka~"'\ll.a, loc..rnod-' counsel for. tho a.p~ollant, argued that tho appellant h2..c1 offered alternative a.ccomodation of tho sane standard as tho suit. , promsos u.11cl whore tho appellant hinsol.f was living• I Dut tho rospondm:i~s refused to accept tho a.ccor:n:1odation on fli.r.1i:zy- grounds nanoly that tho house ifa.S too fax froo tho City ~cntro~ \ ITo argued that this should not bo allowed.._ On g r ~ Ho.2, Mr Mwc:iJ.casunc;-ul.a crguoc1 that tho '1Ti1Junal erred in law and fact in nro::rowinG do-wn tho intcrprotction of 11 cltornativo n.ccoonoclation 11 to correspond. to a plaoo near whc;i;'o ono works. IIo .su.bnittod that it would bo \ -, • - .2 - ' inpossiblc for land.lords under such circuustc'JlCos to find al tornat:i,vc acoonoodc.tion. On cround Ifoa5, !~. Mwclca.su.ngu.J.2. ·sulJt1ittoc1 that tho judgnont of tho .Tri1)tt11bl went further, to stt",to that 1)oct'..usc tho ctppollant did not need tho suit prcnisos for his acconnoclat:j.011," tho order-for vacant possossiofi w'M uncdllcd: £or., IIo axgucc1 tho:t tlus point was not one of the issu.os. F:bal~ Mr o Mwnkp,sungule. suiJrid. ttcc1 Jlihid tl).o Tribunai oriod in not rcfa:rrl~. ·tho oatter· to the Region~ Tious~ Tril)tmal for adjudication. IIe ['.l;C,'Uec1 th(;l,t since the I!ouoinc ·Api.,oals TrilJtt11r.J. hnd hold that sooo iasuos h..-i.cl not been answeroc11 ·tho proper cm1.so wns to rcoi t tho oattor to tI10 Ro~ioncl IIousinG' Tril.runnl for a resolution of tho issues not cllswer6d• In ropl;y- 1 ~• Lanwni lo~od counsel for t!.10 respondents subraittod that tho a;i_-,pocl. hnd no ocrits. Ile referred to sco·'Gion 25(1)(o)(i) and (ii) of the Ront Ilostriction Act in order to c□phc.sizo tho roquironio:p.t of providing acoornoclo.:tion ro0sonaM.y equivalent to tho ono o.t hmid. IIo roforrod to tho cases of }{41:rcn Ve Austin(1947) 2 ALLER 105 mc1 Civil Case No.29/09 - Pa:ronr f!Ad·,~~~ii,!~r v, PaUl. Mc1ro nncl Civil App~tl Ho, 7 of ·1909 - Piiip P~ar '"• Moho.mod Sood which holc1 thn.t oven nnoni tics of tho al tornati vo a.ccoanodation . matter and thair suitability of tho altcrndivo accoonodn.tio.n is important• 1Io cWe:,uod further that the appcllent fc.ilcd to call ·oviclonco to prove the,t ' tho ru. tcrn:;i,tivo . acconimoclation was ronsonobzy equivalent. Thoroforo tho · IIousil-ig Appeals Tribuno.l was rii1ht in holclinG· that the appellant fa.ilod .to clisoh2XGO his duty. unc1cr section 25 of tho Act, ho submi ttode Ile elaborated furtho:r.- that whore as tho suit pror.ti. sos were in Kinondoni within roach of tho bus strd;ion, tho al tcrnative aocoooocla•tion wo,a at Ukon{;n. fi vo miles to tho non.rest bus station. I7'...o snid that tho al tornativo acoomodation was fair from · boinc roasona;bly oquivalont to tho suit prcn:i.sos in view of tho distance which tho respondents would havo to cover., · Ile su'lmi·aod further that tho appellant kept in e:;iving different ·roa.sons as to wby l10 1-rcntod the suit prcmisos which showod ·i,h~t ho was a li2r,. - .A.s for c,-round No.,6, Dr. Lcowai. subtrl/ctcd th<.it tho IIousing .tlppon.ls Tri1nllto,l 11..:.d tho power- und.or sootion 12(l)(r) of the Rent Restriction Act to vory or rescind ariy orders oado by -the llo,zional Ilousil'lg Tribunal .... ,. '•. . : .: : ...• ·•· .) . .....· . :.•, ... :.·.· .· .. ·..... ':..··· .. •' .. and th8,t 'tho~e iraaill() ;;~~rifut ,:;~: • • • > • ,• • .' • ' ~ • ::,::~~:u. . • I ),GO~O •1;J,1,' JJous~,,,, •• • J• • • • ' • • ""'~•• ,, _Appeals ... Tribunal was convinced . .that the: :application -·,._ in tho RoITT.:Gnal: . ·. ..... Ilousirig $,-ibuna.J. was no·~ ,ma4e boia f'id.e• . · ·,{! : .. :i:n a rejoind~r·to tho ab~ve, ·Y.tr.-'i.fw~~ submitted tlfut· ...'...; .... · , .. .···:the appall.mt hnd supijJ.io.d aitoJf.'native accomriodati~n whicl~ 1 ~ suitable:_ . . , : :ih that hQ himseie wa; li~r·\~or·e. ~-: ~~at lio ·_could .no~ bo oxpoctad . to. provide batter o.ccc~oa:ation.:. -As -t:o;.-tho cifstcinco~, ha -~mi tted tha,t :tho deci~i-0n~. of the Court of.: A~paJ, did not decl. wi t4 th·o is~oa. ; ·. . • .. . . . :~I: . . . . ,. . of distance and t:1:nnsport. .... .,,: ·_ ., :With :regard 'tcr ~lio, .$1.l.bmiss16n -that -'ah.<t appollmt h&i ·contradicted • • • ' l .; • •• • ., .. hims~if ~· Mr• Mwal~'1'U.l_~: c~ncedo'a· that thoro w~ such 0011tt-ooictio~;, &ally ·oo. said th2st sinco ·;ho ''teasohab'.cy' oqaj._valont" element had noi b~en : :,, -d~al . . t with lzy- tho R~~6nat1:Io~ . . T.ribunal.~ . \he. 62,so ·ought to ~o : ~ ' :' : .. 1?oen remi •, . t,tod ,·. to_ tµo Roe,i.on{µ . . . Tribunal for· decision. Ilousirig . . . '\ ~.. . : ~ . · . ,, I will comenoo with tho last point' raise-cl by Mr, Hwcl::asti:rigula. 'about · . . -:·. . - . . J· .. . ·._:··!emitting tho oaso hac:,k to the. ~ogional IIousing ~ilJUn::µ so tha~ tho olom6nt ·: ·of. "rea.sonab'.cy' equiw..lent'.' may be doc1d~ I .do ·not 1dth respect to· t1J4clc, .. leat'ned co:unsol, that that ms,what section 12 of tho Ront Restriction Act _., •···-requiros•·•. Even in ordina;izy- ci~il cases .there is no re~remon-(tbr an . • ; ·? . .. - r, ~ a.ppellato court to ro~t a. matter to tho lower court jus-'J 1)ocause some points , ~ i- .- . witre not adjudicated upon by the lower court. The. appellate ~ourt can cert.a,,- .inly deal witl) the matter• In. this·. api>Ga\, _the appallmt ooduc'ed no evidence to .establish that -the.- . n;L tcrna.tivo· accommodation was ·ree.sonn.bly equivalent to . . . the suit promises, IIo · cannot po henrd to _complain c>.bout this deficiency and to ask that h9 1)o e;i.ven an opportuni-cy- to load evidence to that affect. Further- more, s~cti_on 12(l)(r) ot the Ront Restriction Act Gl!lpmrors tho ·IIousing Appeals Tribunal. to vary or rcsoind.aizy- order :on.do und.or the prq'Vi~ions of this soction ,· · i•o•. sect;i.on 12. Tlu1t ne:~i~jf' ,tnegional IIousin« Tribunal has oad.c any o:rdor-1 tho IIousin(S ~pporu.s ::..y., :·::;. c~ vriry it or rescind _it,. Tho oa.in tltl.nc ~1 this a,pp~al is whethor tho altornatiw accommodation which the appell2nt wa~· ;£faring to the respondents was reo;s~ah]y equivalent to tho ·sui:t .' pietrl.sos . . w1~rc they a:e··stl\Yi.ng,. Dut. before .. I de~ with· that point I will examine -~he· r-oo..sons on the part of' tho app~llont ·for- requiring the suit premises• ... As Q.oncede,d to by Mr. Mwak~a, tfut·•:ti.Ppellnnt gave ·contra.dicto17 ·reasons for wisb.inc to have the suit premises. DuJi; what t:r;:,nspired a.a tho truth was th~t the appellant wanted to oxchonge accol!llloda.tion ·w:i/i;h ·tho respondents so that ho might occuw the suit premises and-:leave -'.;he respondents to occuw his cur:ront residence at Ukonga. The Ilousing Appoal.s Tribunal found that the - 4 ... appellant did not require ·llie suit premises for his occupation as a residence• Section 25(1)(e)(ii) states inter alia thuss. 11 in case of a dwellinc; house, it is xeasonably required as a residence for himself'u.tu•i Dut the appellant already has a residence for himself. In such a sHuation can it be said ·l;hs:t the suit premises a;t"e reasonablt reg:u:i.X'ed as a residence for the appellant ox occupation as~ residence for himsel:f' or for his wife or children? I do not think so, and in wy case ·l;here is no evidence to tha·t effect, Therefore, even on the first limb of PaJ:'8<:,'Taph ( e) ( i) this appeal crumbles., As for. alternative accommodation reasonably equivalent, I also agree with the learned Chairman of the ITousing Appeals Tribunal that no evidence was adduced to show that the alternative accommodation being offered was reasonably equivalent to the suit premises• Indeed the avid.once es"tcblishes the opposite bee ause the alte:rnati vo accommodation is far off :f:r-om the oi ty centre and reqµires one to wallt 5 miles to the neaJ:<est bus station., · Such accommodation cannot 1Jo saicl to be reasonab'.cy- e.q_uivalent to the suit. premises• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IJG was held in !J!So Paxmar_and another v PaUlo E. Maro - Civil Appeal No• t • • • 29 of 19C9 (C~AbT. unroportec1) that whore the suit premises were 1Jeing used .for 1Joth residential and oomuercial purposes, alternative accommodation which cannot be used both for residential and comnercial purposes cannot he :roasonably equivalent to the suit preraisos. Going by the :reasoning in the ju~G oited case, I have no d.ifficulty in oonclucl.ing that the alternative accommodation in this appeal which is as d.::sc:::ilJorl.. a1Jove cannot be said to be :reasonably oqu.iva.lent to tho suit premises because the. ::~spondents would 1)e put to g-reo.1 i11conve.nienoe as to their access to the ph.ces of work, nore so for the second respond who wouid lJe put into further pro1:ileos of walking for 5 kilometres to the nearest bus stop, It follows, therefore~ that not one out of the two requirements of parc!(;Taph (e) of section 25(1) has been satisfied.. The appeal cannot auccood and it is d.ismissc-::1. ~:ith costs~ Delivered to Mr a MwaJ;:;i.su~"ula. D:r,, Lamwai - ~"h:::~~1t,. -····•-z::::_--~~~-;~---·:_;---··-'---. __.__· · . ). ---· .. . - ·•.. ; ··- __....-· :_ ----~ . A,Dfiirn.TI ·-. · , ·-·-··-·--·-·-···- ·,. ·JUDGE ~ 5/4/1991.