stanslaus patrick vs hilda matei as administratrix of the estate of the late sadiki iddi another 2023 tzhclandd 17283 8 december 2023

Page 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND REVISON NO. 47 OF 2023 STANSALUS PATRICK......................................................... .APPLICANT VERSUS HILDA MATEI (As Administratix of the Estate of the Late Sadiki Iddi).......................................................................... 1st RESPONDENT ZENA RAMADHANI................................................... 2nd RESPONDENT RULING 3cP November & 8th December 2023 MHINA, J. This is the revision application filed by the applicant, who was the appellant before the DLHT of Kibaha in Land Appeal No. 24 of 2019. In his chamber summons, he prays this court for the following: - i. That this Honorable court be pleased to call for and examine the record of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kibaha in Land Appeal No. 24 of 2019 (preceded by land case No. 09/2018 of Lugoba Ward Tribunal and Land Case No. 11/2017 of Lugoba Village) for purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision therein, and as to the ? <>( / regularity of the. proceedings therein, and quash the ptoceedings' end judgment thereof. //. Hu it the (osts of this application be provided for. ///. Any other refief (s) as the Court may deem fit andjust to giant. 1 lie chamber application was supported by an affidavit deponed by Stanslaus Patrie, the applicant. The respondents filed a joint counter affidavit I he matter proceeded by way of written submissions whereas the applicant drew and filed his written submissions in person while Ms Happyphania IL Luena learned counsel represented the lsl and 2nd respondents. The applicant's grievances were to the effect that both the 1st and the 2"d respondents filed a case against the applicant in land No. 09/2018 and 10/20.18 at Lugoba ward tribunal. The 2nd respondent had no cause of action, for she was a witness in the original land case No.11/2017 between the applicant and Sadiki Iddi, The applicant further submitted that there is a legal issue whether die 2nd respondent, who had not been a party in the original land case No, 11/2017 at Lugoba Village, filed a land case No. 09/2018 against the applicant. Page 3 of 7 He maintained that he was aggrieved by the decision of the Ward tribunal in land appeals No. 09/2018 and 10/2018 and appealed to DLHT in appeals No. 24/2019 between the applicant and one Zena Ramadhani and No. 25/2019 between the applicant and Sadiki Iddi. He insisted that this revision application has merit because the applicant has successfully shown sufficient reasons to enable the court to invoke the revision powers and allow the application. Responding, the 1st and 2nd respondents learned counsel refuted the application and prayed the court to dismiss it with costs for the reasons she gave forth. She submitted that the records show that there was Land Appeal No. 24 of 2019 between the applicant and the 2nd respondent in this revision application and Land Appeal No. 25 of 2019 between the applicant and Sadiki Iddi, who is the deceased and his estate is administered by the lsl respondent. The learned counsel maintained that the applicant is confusing the court with the revision application involving parties of the two distinct cases. Referring to the cases, she stated that the parties to the cases are different, and the subject matter is also equally different. P.ve 4 nl') 7he learned counsel insisted that the F‘ respondent has never been a part of Land Case No. 09 of 20.18, which is subject to this revision application. She maintained that the application lacked reasonable and sufficient cause for the issue claimed to be unfounded and prayed the application to be dismissed with costs. Rejoining, the applicant maintained that both the respondents filed cases and claimed against the applicant. He went on to say that there were no records of appeal No. 25 between the Applicant and one Sadiki Iddi (the deceased), and the appeal was in respect of the 2nd respondent, who did not have a cause of action against the Applicant. He insisted that the 1st and the 2nd respondents claimed over the same piece of Land. He maintained that this revision application has merit and prayed that the application be allowed with costs. After the parties' submissions, I am tasked to determine whether the revision application has merit. In so doing, I went through the court records and having so done, I will first address the issues found in the records in conjunction with the submissions by the parties. It is in the record that, before the Lugoba ward tribunal, there was another matter, Land Application No. 10 of 2018, where the matter was I'.W 0l / determined in hwoui of the respondent. The applicant appealed to the NHI of Kibaha Stanslaus Patrick (appellant) and Sadiki Iddi (Respondent). After the determination by DLHT, parties were warned that none was declared winner and proceedings, judgment and orders of the ward Uibunal were nullified. At the set of time, also in 2019, at Lugoba Ward tribunal, the 2nd lespondent Zena Ramadhani instituted the Land case against the applicant, which was decided in her favor. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed an appeal before the DLHT for Kibaha in Land Appeal No. 24 of 2019, the appeal which was dismissed. Dissatisfied, the applicant filed a Land Revision application No. 07 of 2021 before this court (Makani, J. as he then was), which was disposed of on preliminaries and dismissed on 28.02.2022. As it appears, before the Kibaha District and Housing Tribunal, the Land appeal No. 24 of 2029 was registered as Stanslaus Patrick vs Zena Ramadhani. With no reasons stated, when the applicant filed a ievision application No. 07 of 2021 before this court, parties changed and read: Stansiaus Patrick vs Sadiki Iddi (1st respondent) and Zena Ramadhani (2u1 respondent). P;ip,c6of7 In the present revision application, the parties kept on changing as it now reads on records: Stansiaus Patrick vs Hilda Matei (the Administratrix of the Estate of the Late), Sadik Iddi (1st respondent) and Zena Ramadhani (2nd respondent). It is from this point that I find that the claim by the respondent learned counsel, which the applicant had time to respond to through rejoinder, holds. Since the joinder of parties to the case is regulated by law, especially Order I of the CPC, for the procedures and reasons to be adhered to for the party to be joined, it is not shown how the parties from Land appeal No. 09 of 2019 before DLHT kept on changing to accommodate the 2nd respondent who is the administrator of the Estate of Sadiki Iddi who was also not to the part to the case. I do not agree with the applicant that there were no records of appeal No. 25 before the trial tribunal, while it had the same feature as the records. Also, in the absence of the records of appeal, No. 25 of 2019 before Kibaha DLHT does not justify his act of joining the 2nd respondent, who was neither in person nor the representative of the estate of the deceased, formed a party to the appeal No. 24 of 2019 which is subject to this revision application. P.M’3’ 7 ol 7 Having remarked on the above query, the question that presently confronts me is what needs to be done. To me, there can be no option for the amendment of the pleadings at this stage, and the only viable option is to strike out the revision application. The matter is, accordingly, pushed back to where it was immediately before the institution of the revision application. From there, the applicant may wish to take any necessary steps if he still wishes to pursue his cause. In fine, the revision application is struck out with costs. It is so ordered. JUDGE 8/12/2023