castor raphael ligalama vs mohamed kalimangasi others 2019 tzhclandd 33 27 september 2019

Irregular succession and participation of assessors in the DLHT proceedings violated mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the proceedings and judgment null and void.

Citation: castor raphael ligalama vs mohamed kalimangasi others 2019 tzhclandd 33 27 september 2019
Parties: Appellant: Castor Raphael Ligalama; 1st Respondent: Mohamed Kalimang'asi; 2nd Respondent: Thadei Mwakisoma; 3rd Respondent: Otto Mwakisoma; 4th Respondent: Hessa Kisinza
Court: TANZLII
Jurisdiction: Tanzania
Judgment Date: 27 September 2019
Procedural Posture: Land Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: judgment and proceedings of DLHT nullified
Legal Topics: Tribunal Composition, Assessor Succession, Res Judicata, Jurisdictional Irregularity
Source Language: English

Land Law Tribunal Composition Assessor Succession Res Judicata Jurisdictional Irregularity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Castor Raphael Ligalama

Appellant

Mohamed Kalimang'asi

1st Respondent

Thadei Mwakisoma

2nd Respondent

Otto Mwakisoma

3rd Respondent

Hessa Kisinza

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Land Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal properly assessed and applied evidence
2 Whether the tribunal was properly constituted with assessors
3 Whether the proceedings were affected by irregular succession of assessors

Ratio Decidendi

Irregular succession and participation of assessors in the DLHT proceedings violated mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the proceedings and judgment null and void.

Court Disposition

judgment and proceedings of DLHT nullified

Orders

File remitted to DLHT for determination of Appeal No. 5 of 2013 between appellant and first respondent
Dispute between appellant and first respondent remains sub judice to pending appeal