20150921 TZCA Tabora

IN THE HIGH-COURT OF TANZANIA . . . . . . ATTABORA. · MISC. LANDAPPLJCAJIONNo. 15 OF 2015 l. DIRECTOR K.)\HAJ\1ATO\NN COUNCIL. .............. :.. I sT APPLICANT 2. THE CHAIRMAN: KAHAMAT0\\ "N· COUNCIL. ..... 2No Ar'PLICANT 1 I~ Versus; L l • Vlfa1ILIA PRODUCERS AND SHOPPING · r,-i-• CENTRE CO. LTD .. .- .. :;; ... .-: .. .- ... : .. .- ....... ·.................... RESPONDENT) I j_ i· . -._;:, :·_._·. _t, RULING ·-i ·,t-:--. I.:.. I j 10 &21 /09/2014 ! ! I- II Utarn"va J.. _. I l .. . .... . ,.. I=- . . This is. a nlling. _on ·~;o j551Je$_ .:nie first .isst;Ie rylates to a prelim ipa111 _- objecti011 (PO).· rai~~e;·,r.h;:~~he···r~spdnd~·ri~,. VUMILJ.A. rioDOCERS AN4 - •I SHOPPING CENTRE CcY LTD against the application filed by the nvQ applicants. the ·DIR.ECTOR. :KAHAMA TO\VN COUNCIL and . thr' CHAIRMAN. KAHAMA _TOV/N COUNCIL .(first and second. responderff' respectively). ·n1e second issuewas raised by the court suo-motu(hereinafte~ called the court's issue) and orally argued by the· parties upon an invitation by the court t0 doso. The app.lication was preferred by ,;,,;ay of chamber summons supported by an _affi~avit under sections (ss) 43 of the Land Disput~s Courts Act, Cap. ·216 R: E. 2002, 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33' R. E. 2002 and Order XLIII rule II of Cap. 33. In the application the app1icants are seeking· th~ follO\,ving orders; · . Page 1 of 9 l. That this honourable court be pleased to make revis'.ion of the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) ·for Shiriyangain Misc. Land Application No. 25 of2015 dat~d 20 th February, 2ois.·- 2. Costs of this application be provided for. 3. Any other equitable relief (s) that this court ma)' deem fit to grant. . ' The PO was footed on ~ single point of law that the appiication rs J ' misconceived because if the applicants were aggrieve~ by the DLHT decisiori they ought to have pr~ferred an appeal to the High Cpurt instead of filing thci ; current application. On the other..hand the court's issue. was whether . or not the I • I application was competent for being prefe1Ted under s$. 43 of Cap. 216 and 79, of Cap.33 without speci:fyiri.g the enabling sub-sections ;of thoseprovisions of the .law. The issue follo\lved the foct that the court had su~pected that the omission ; ' t:o specif)" rhe sub-section was fatal to the application a~ per the law: In his submissions in chief supporting the PO ·r0:°r.Mtaki learned counsel • I • ' . • ·1 • for the respondent argued that it is the la1vv that ,vheret~ere is a right of appeal, a party· aggrieved by a ·d_ecision must resort to the app~al and not to revision.A ' revision is exercisable only ,vhere there is no right ·bf appeal and is not an alternative to an appeal. He cited decisions of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania (CAT) ·in Transport Equipments v. Valambya [1995]. TLR 161 and Alais Pro-Chemie v.- \Vella A.G. [1996] TLR 269 to support the contention. The learned counsel further argued that Regulation 24 of the Land Disputes Court Regulations, Goven1ment Notice (GN) No. 174 of 2003 pr_ovides that a party . . aggrieved by the decision of the DLHT has the right to appeal to the High . . Court. The applicants thus ,vrongly filed this application instead of exercising that right of appeal.· Regarding the court's issue the. learned counsel for the respondent . contended that the application was also incompetent for incomplete citation of the enabling laws. He submitted that s. 43 of the Cap. 216 has two ·sub-sections- .· but the applicant did not specify under which sub.-section the application was Page 2 of 9 ,,, based. He further submitted ihat the applicant ,~1ould haye cit.ed s. 43 (1) (b) of the Act as the proper enabling law. but he did not do so. The leanie.d _counsel also argued that the applicant committed the same act by nol specifying the sub- section of s. 79 of Cap. 33. ~ihich co11.taihs tv.r~ sub-~ections.He -~l~o submitted · . that the application isliable to..· be struck . . . . out . ..Be. th:us .urgedthis ,, . court to strike it out. In his replying submissions against the PO J\1r.Magala learned counsel for the applicants· argued that the applica~ts ·. coulc:l not . appeal against . the. decision of the DLHT ·since ·the .:same· did 1iot · fiiuilly deterrrtine the case! According to s. 47 <:.ff Cap. 3~ -as amended by the Written Law (Miscellaneous ' Amendments) Act No. 25 of 2002 such orders are not/appealable. The learned counsel al~o argued that s. 43 ( 1) .(b) of Cap .. 216 empowers ' this court to entertain tevisions ~gainst orde{s ~ade! by DLHT in case of any· en-or. The order at issl1e 'v\1 as e1Toheous, hence revisab~e by this court under such . provisions of the law. He cited the errors in: th~ "orctbr as being the following; . . . . . that it offended s. 14 O) (b) of the Local Govemme:nt Urban Authorities Act, . C~p. ·288 ·re E. 2002- ~~;hitlfT~quir~s- ·suits a'gainst t11e'."L6cai Governments to _in their own na111es.-I-k'·s~1ppoh~tf°tlik. arguin.bri(b~t the case: of DonatusMkumbo ·. and another v .. the: l)i.str.ict ktec~ave Directo:i" ~f Bariadi' District Council; . High Court Civil Cas~ No.· 14. of 2009, at .Ta:bora. The other error according· .. . . . . ·.. · . . . ·.. . ,. . i to the learned counsel° ,;vas that; the order by the DLHT granted an application' ,;i,1hich vvas en-oneous1v filed ,~1ith;ut an{·. existi112 main suit. He also cited the case ofCalico TextiI~ ~lndustri~~ Li~it:d v. Zen:n Investments, Registrar o/ Titles and NBC Holdi~g· Corporation [1999] TLR. 100 (HC) to support the contention.He mentione9 th~ third en-or as failure by the DLHT to give the applicant the right to. be hear,d as .required by the .Constitution and Order XX.,XVII of C:ap. 33. Regarding the cou11's ·. issue the learned counsel · for the. applicant. contended that the omission to specify the sub-section under s. 43 of Cap_. 2 i 6 is Page 3 of 9 · ,, .. not fatal in la\.v ~ince.the· ,:vhole of·s. 43 gives this COUI1 both supervisor); and re-,1 isional powers. He- also. argued that the failure to -specify the sub-section under s. 79 of Cap .. 33 was equally not fatal to the application foi the same reasons·. He cited the' dedsi<on ·of this court in Arusha City Council v. HM Tires and-Services Centre Ltd, HC.Civil Revision No. 10 of 2013 at Arusha and argued that in this case, the cour:t exercised its revisional powers ;though no chambc:r summons was· filed .in court. He thus contended that though the case .., .· . . .. .did not decide an issue· similar to the one at h~nd, that case is rele~ant ~n the · matter under discussion. · . ln his rejoinder, submjssions the learned.- counsel for the· respondent argued that Cap. 33. ,does .not apply in appeals from DLHT to this court unless there is a lacuna in Cap. 216 which is riot the-case; He cited regulatiory 24 of the . GN No. 174 of 2002 to cement the point. He also distinguished the Arusha City CoundLcase from this case .and reiterated.his submissions in chief. . .. . ' As hinted ·earlier the:tv,1 0 issues to be determined here are. these;: . l. Whether or nor it wa<:- proper :for the applicc:1nts to apply for revisio~ ani.id the .· existence . of their .r:ight..ofappeal. -·· · . . 2. 'Whethet~rntJt th.e appl.icatlon is c'ompetent for being prefel"red uriaii· ss. 43 of Cap. 2 J 6 and 79 oLCap. 33 .without specifying the enabling su.b-sections .. ···:'i"l~;::_·· ... ·.:·. of the ·respective statutes. · --· ... X{-:";;;;.~~ c::-;-.~--,~~"'- . . • - · ;_t:c..z.~;. . :~-_: _ ·.. -. - ~_..,,_,~I~, • As my adjudicating plan I will first test the· second issue and 1ff need will arise 1 will test the first This strategy follows my understanding that the first issue depends on the second .issue being answered affirmatively since it is through this second issue that the court will assess if it has properly.been moved in this same application. This is an imp011ant issue to be decided before this court de~errnines wheth~r or not the applicsints have the right to file this application for revision.in the existence of thefr right of appeal. . Regarding the seco!1d issue, I am settled in mind that the "law is currently settled that where an enabling law of an application is a sub-section of a statute, Page 4 of 9 . 'If : I i I . I then failure to specify _that _su_b-section _of th~ provisions of the law ~nder ,;vhictj an application is preferred is f?tai t9 the application._ This omission amo\.lnts t~ . . I h·on-citation of enabhng Pf9visions. of the law and renders an· applicatio1 · incompetent as precisely _n1ain,tai.necl.1Jy tbe- learned counsel_ for the respondent! There are·many prece;dents sµppo1ting that stance, see for exarilple; Chama ch~ Walimu Tanzania ,!. The Attor~ey Ge:neral, CAT CivilApplicatiorf No. 15~ of 2008 1 at Dar es Sal_a~uii (~nreportedt M/S Ilabila Industries Ltd. & ~ .. ·: •;.:',(: . ~·-. . others v. Tanzania J:nvestm~nt_B~nk & another CAT, Civ ..A,pplicatio·n No~ :. ., . . . -I 159 of 2004, .- at .Dar. es_ .. Salaam (unieported)andlngoma Holding . Limited . vJ. I K.agera Co-Operath;e; JJnfo11. (1990) Ltd· ·and_ Jac):{em Auction Mart &jj • ! Brokers .Ltd, CAT · (;ivH.: Appl. .No: .166 of 2005, at Dar es Salaa4 (unreported). ,1- . . l C The law .further ·cor111~1ands"·_that, ,vtorig or nbn-cir'~tion of enabling law itj . . • . ! . . . . . .. •, . . . . . .· . . .l applications is not a )11er~ procedutal slip:it is fatal and goes to _the root of .thd .· .. . .. . .. . I _ · matter. Ther:e is- agairi ·i heap _ot'precedents to_ that effect;· se~ the CA~ decision~_ •. -~n.the Cham.a CJ:Hi w.a!iJilU 'fariza.-nia case(sup1'a).NaibukatibuMkuu (CCM). _- .- ; , . . . . .. - . . . . -• - I v. lvlohamcd. Jbrahiri:1 :Vet-sil ,. . an·d sonsi. . Z·artzibar·CAT-Civil .. . . Application NoJ,I and::· Almas jddieM.-,vinyi . v. National' -Bank o~ · 3 of 2003 (unrepo:t~d) Commerce Civil AppHcatfon No .. 88 of 1999 (unreported) . . See also thl 1 . decisions by this court ,intheCases orsaid SalimBakhresa and Co. Ltd V r Master of MV. Denier.Tra4e Ltd, London C/0 Mr.Denier Premier Dar esf salaam, l~igh Court ··coih'me'rcial Court Case No. 46 of. 2004, at Dar es salaam (u1ireported) ·and Ern·est A. Mlvakasala and another v. Kinondoni Municip::il Trade Officer and nvo others, Misc. Civil Case N~. 96 of 2005, at . . Dar es salaam (unreporie.d). which I made recently. This rule applies in all applications before al-l courts oflav/. · · Moreover, I am of the settled view that the rati~:male for this rule against • wrong or non-citation of enabling lawsin applications is that, it assists the court Page 5 of 9 to determine whether it has jurisdiction to e·ntertain the:matter and whether the. person . moving the ·court is entitled under the lavv. to the sought orders before. . . the court tests the merits of the matter .. _Moreover, the rule is intended to r~liev·e . . the court from the tormerit. . of perusing the bulky existing sections and sub- : . sec.tions of statutes in seqrch of provisfcins serving the purposes just mentioned I ! herein above. For this understanding th~ CA y.· once rirnde useful remarks in: . . . 13ahadir Sharif Rashid and 2 others v. Manso or Sharif Rashid and another,· . . . . . ' CAT Civil Application No . .127 .of 2~06, ~t Dar es Sala~m (Unreported), and I: quote the same for a readymade reference; ·· . . . "The court should not be made to go ori a fishing expe9ition pouring over sections, rules and the like in order to ascertain wh~ther. or not it has jurisdiction to make the particular order"· In my view th~r~fore, this rule against wrong or non~citation of enabling law .. cannot be relaxed by cou'1ts of la~v. In indeed the learned counsel f01: the applicants seemingly acknowledges the. importance of specifying ?'. Sll~~section o( the.· ~paq,iing law since in. his arguments regarding _the PO i-~i~rd by the_res11ondem·heiargued that_ s. 43 (1) (b) .. of Cap. 216 also'empo,;vers t~ii C0~11: id'·ente~tai11'r'e\;.isi~hs against orders made. by a DLHT in· case of ari;>eri'or. -That may ~e ·true yes, but he could not rely upon such sub-sub sect.ion of the· statute by merely citi~g it in his submissio'ns without . - first citin£ the. same in .the chamber .. . summons as an enabling lav,1 for ',, - moving this court: This was thus an afterthought that could not be of any use to the applicants ... The applicants cannot thus argue that failure to specify the enabling sub- section of the lav,,. is· not fatal._ They cannot also rely upon the Arusha City Council case for the· followtng: gtounds; the case i_s· distinguishable :as rightly argued by the leamed _counsel for _the r~spoiid~nt sin,ce it did not decide any issue similar to the one at hand: and it did not revise any decision of the DLHT Page 6 of 9 f' made under Cap. 216, but of.a Resident Magistrates' Court. Again, even if it ...:· would be taken that the case decided ·on an issue ~imilar to the one under , discussion the same ~o·uld not' be useful to the applicants since it was decided by · another Judge of this cou.r:tcthe :decision-.:of whom does not bind me, especjally- "vhere there are contr?r)' 1deGisi;ons,.. by the. CAT. lt must be born in mind that decisions by the CAT; ·bejng the ·highest com1_ . rn ~he ! hierarch of our court;, -svstein. ., . '-" .to ·tribunals ane are bihdin2: ,,. - . . ;€ourts:subordinate . . . ' to it 'includin2: ...... this court.:,,.. - . irrespective of. the corre9tmess ,of such ,,_decisions, .see·•, um uiyaya Wafanyakazi. .-. Ta,itzania v~ Kiwand_a. Cha. :Uchapishaji cha Taifa [1988]. TLR. 146. This: i · -.stance is . by \-'irtue. of.- the :~common. lav-,. doctrine -.df stare dee is is which 1s: applicable in.our jurisdiction too,_:· ._ · But in citing.:the Arusha City Council case ;J understood the learned counsel for the applic3,nt as trying to rely upon the geberal revisional powers of. . . . -~ :. : ·: ··~- :, :. - ..:· '.:: . ' .. ~ . ·. ' .. . : . . ·.... : ~ . .. . : this court vvhich .. may . be. ;- exercised ·, .. . ..... ·. e:ven . by this qourt . . suo-motu following: . ..•. j . ··,.' _complaints against inj1,1stice.. tl~--~u~h a1w means. inciuding mere letters. That !• ~ ~ • • •, •1 of the law· yes 1n some circumstances. However, my •• • • •• .~. •: • I • may be a c01rcct position .. ! -~ :· •• : ••• ;:· ... • ·.: > ~. • : •• :. ~ • • : • •• • ' ; •• •• vie,v is.that,.such a ccJur~e lT;JlfSt :qe left r6 the discretiopal powers of this court in, . '. . . . :, ·:_.~ ·r,:;~~::·.:···.,.\:~;! ·:.. ·.-,:.• .\.:_·,._. ·-!::: ~ callir:ig for the record_s of lmv~r court ·insp~c_tingti1em and making any order i~ .. • . ·. • !. ~ . •• ~' 1 :· .. - :· ••·• ·• ,• • - : • ..• • • • •· .'.' • .. .• - : . • . • • ; • finds .ii just to make according to the citcmnstances of the case. That course, . •: !.,·.,· ' .. ,, . . cam10t apply ,vhere a ·party to ;court p~oceedings moves the court for specific . orders the. ,;vay th~ app~l-i~~nts ..• ·.. :.. in the matter at h~nd did. Where the party moves! · ' . ·, . - .. ·the court by an appli_cation (chamber summons) seeking specific orders, he must . '. follov,; the rule I discusse_d above by properly citing the specific enabling sub-' section of the law as unders_~ored b!i the CAT through the· precedents cited herein above. . J underlined . this. pa:i1icular . view on when this court may. suo-motu . ~ ' . ' make revisional . ordei:s . ' .. without' .any chamber ., application and . what it should do •'. ' ,Yherc a party to court proceedings moves it for ·specific revisional orders thi·ciugh a chamber summons: see SaleheOmaryNyikoand two others v. the. Director of Publjc Prosecution, HC Criminal Revi~ion No. 3 of 2013, at Dar Page 7 pf 9 .. ,-.... es salaam. (unreported), This one was criminal revisional matter but b)i parity of reasons the principle applies mutatis -mutandis _in cjvil revisional matters since this court has revisional juri~diction for the sake of doing justice in 80th kinds · of proceedings. Mv further vie\,v is -th~t,while it .1s. a basic principle of lav-1 that courts should not permit procedural technicalities to defeat justice (as instructed under aiiicJe 107 A (2.) ( e) :of the Constitution of the. United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, Cap. 2, R. E, 2002), it.is ..the .duty of parties coming to courts, yspecially those ably represented by. learn~d cm_.msel lil<.e_ the applicants in the :matter at hand, to comply with the procedure set by the. lmv, otherwise there ,yill be no need of having procedural"rt.tles-.· The CAT in Zub.eriMussa v. MS. Shinyanga Town Council, Civil Ap'peal No .. 16 of 1999,· at Mw~nza held to the ~ffect that the provisions of artide •io7A (2) (e) of Cap. 2 do not encourage unfounded breach of procedural r~les; instead they underscore the conformity with the law . For the above grounds, J deterrnine .the· second .issue negatively to the -· · effect that the app!-ication -is incompetent ·for be-ing preferred under ss. 43 .of Cap. 216 and 79. ofCap.33-v,.;iti10utspecifying:the: enabli11g;sub-settions of the respective· statutes. The .remedy--of an· incompetent application in ·1aw is none· . other than a striking 011t of the saine.. ; .. ..~=~-- Having_. made the findirtf( above. I am not obliged \.-,' _. to test th'e-~ffirst . -~·.:. -:--..::- . , issue . . - :.•'.~_,·;:~:· _;:·;~.: . smce its examination .depended much :on the ·second issue being determined affirmatively. Again, ._ the finding in respect: :of the second issue suffices to dispose of the entire m·atter. Testing the first issue will thus amount to a superfluous exercise of kicking a dead horse or toiling for an academic exercise which is not the objective ?f the adjudication process.· .J therefore, strike O\lt the application, I- also 01:der the applicants to pay costs for the applicatic_m. This ,order follows· the understanding that it is settled law of this land now that; costs follO\v event unless the court records reasons for Page 8 of 9 . / not following that"gen:eral rule, s_ee: s. -.JO .of Cap. -33 and the CAT decision in the case of Njoro Furnitu.re Mart' Ltd ,v.__Tanz,ania Electric Supply Co Ltd [199"5]TLR 205. In ·the· matter at hand; r' lack reasons for ·supp01iing mv .,I departure from -that -general· rule . .and· the· counseJ - for·- the .plaintiffs did not. sugg;est _._... one. It is accordimrlv ordered: '-'.., JI-IK. UT Al'v1W A . ~'JUDGE ··;-;,,_, ,..-.,. . ' -,-,, :,: _, '. :_. .' :. . 21/9/20] 5" 21/9/2015 . . . . .. · . _Q_Q'8,AM: Hon. Utam\va, J.< · · :, · 'For Applicants; Mt. Mt,;1,~:i advq.~ate for~Mr . M:agala advocate. For Respondel_lt__JA:r. Iy1t~ki adv9c_at~_-_ · _ ·· • . " . . • . : .... : .... : . -; '.. . ' . ~ ' . ~, ~ .. ,· ; ..... • .• . • : 'i. : : ....• BC: Mis. DotioKwilabfa. . , . -_. - - -C~6urt; Rt.ilir-:g· det1,ii1:ed 'fo.-the \itesenc.e'. of 'Mr.Mtaki- ·1earned courisel for the .I _respondent \vho also. h-¢,Ids ::.-brids~ Jo_r :rvtr_;Magala learned counsel -for the applicants, in. chamb~~rsth_i~ ?Vtdai<".?f S¢ptembei·, 2015. · . . . . . :.. ·~' .. : ·: ;.:: ~ ·.: .- . . . ~- . ·-· . ·. . . . ., ' . . . ~. . . - _.... :.: ·}DD.GE._ 21/9/20{5 - Page 9 of 9