RULING OF ESNAT

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT KIGOMA LAND APPEAL NO. 000015130 OF 2024 ESINATI BUJIJI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.DOUBLE PETRO BUJIJI 2.STANSLAUS PETRO BUJIJI 3.HADIJA KIGOGO 4.JENIA BUNGULA 5.MBEZI AUCTION MART 6.THOAMS MARWA ERASTO 7.WILSON BUJIJI .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING J. NKWABI, J, 02 & 02/12/2024 The appellant, with another person who did not wish to appeal against the verdict of the trial tribunal, sued the 1st to the 6th respondents for of Plot No. 31A Block “E” Kasulu Township (Uvinza road). Among other reliefs, the trial tribunal was called upon to find that the disputed piece of land is the property of the appellant and the 7th Respondent. That piece of land was surveyed and a letter of offer issued over it. Now the issue is whether such determination would be done without the presence of necessary parties such as the Commissioner for Lands and Kasulu Town Council, or at least one of them. If one of them or more would be joined, whether the trial tribunal would have had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Meanwhile, the appellant was aggrieved with that decree of the trial tribunal. She is appealing to this Court while having nine grounds. Parties filed their respective written submissions arguing the appeal on merit. Truly, the appellant is praying for the reliefs I emulate: 1. That, the appeal be allowed and the trial tribunal’s decision be quashed and set aside. 2. That the 5th respondent be condemned to pay T.shs ten million (10,000,000/=) as general damages for the disturbance caused. 3. Costs of this appeal and in the trial tribunal be granted. 4. Any other reliefs deemed just and fit by the honourable Court be granted. Page. 1 This Court, when it went through the respective parties’ submissions for and against the appeal and the decision in Nestory Msoffe & 5 Others v. The Registered Trustees of Catholic Archdiocese of Arusha, Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2019, found it imperative and indeed, invited the parties to address the Court on the failure to join the Commissioner for Lands and any other necessary parties in the suit, and if the Commissioner for Land is joined whether the trial tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. All the learned counsel for each respective party conceded that necessary parties such as the Commissioner of Lands were improperly not joined to the suit, and once they are joined, because they are the government, under the Government Proceedings Act, the trial tribunal lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter and thus the proceedings, judgment and the decree thereof are nullity. Admittedly, in Nestory Msoffe & 5 Others v. The Registered Trustees of Catholic Archdiocese of Arusha, Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2019, CAT, it was authoritatively ruled that: “... it was incumbent on the High Court to be keen enough and require the parties to amend the pleadings and join the Registrar of titles who is alleged to have register the respondent’s property in question held under Certificate of Title. Since it is clear that the Registrar of Titles had a role in the registration of the land in question, the non- joinder of her in the suit before the High Court means that the Registrar was not heard which occasioned a miscarriage of justice which cannot be condoned by the Court and determining the present appeal. In the result, we have no option but to annul the trial proceedings and the impugned judgment.” For all that, by reason of the advocates of the parties having conceded that fundamentally, the Commissioner for Lands ought to be joined to the suit, which situation ousts the jurisdiction of the trial tribunal. I proceed to rule that the proceedings, judgment and the decree of the trial tribunal are nullity for failure to join the Commissioner for Lands and other necessary parties. In connection to that, this Court cannot order for a trial de novo. Elicited from the above discussion, I nullify the proceedings of the trial tribunal. Further to that, I quash the judgment and set aside the decree of the trial tribunal. As the anomaly was raised by this Court suo motu, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated at KIGOMA ZONE this 2nd of December 2024. Page. 2 J. . NKWABI, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 3