NA 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT ZANZIBAR (COnAN: MAKA€ .RAHANI, J .A.AndMROSOJ.A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2000

BETWEEN (ECUTIVE SECRETARY WAKF & TRUST

COMMISSION ZANZIBAR APPLANT AND I • HEMED ABDALLA HEMED

ISSA OMAR JUNA MHAMED DADA M'HAMED . .. . RESPONDENTS +. ABDALLAH AMEIP HEMED 5. ABDALLAH SElF AL-BAFtRY '(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Zanzibar at Zanzibar) dated the 30th September, 1999 in LOE 2ti999 a

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RAMADHANI. J.A,: The appellait is the trustee of the wakf of the Mosque of All wa Dadi house No.1727/28 in Mkunazini, Zanzibar, while the respondents are the tenants in that house. The appellant, in Civil Case No. 37 of 1990 (o.S.), applied to the Pegithafcourt-Magistrat-e--..- (Extended Jurisdiction), for le?ve to sell the premises0 That was granted on 27/12/1990 and on the strength of that the appellant went ahead to sell the house. The respondents filed a. suit in the Regional Court, Civil . Case No. 15 of 1995, arguing that as tenants they were entitled to a. right of pre-emption, that. is, they should have been given . . ./2 However, it is legally correct that courts, even the High Court, do not have authority to grant leave to disipose wakf property. Under section 1+ of the Wakf Property Decree (Cap. 103) such powers are vested in the relevant Minister. Therefore, the r.der granting leave tv,- sell wakf property in Civil Case No3?f 1990 (o.s.) was illegal. Would this court wring its hands in utter .deseration and let an illegality stand? We think not. So, we agree with Mr. Nassor, the learned counsel for—the----.- respondents, that it is appropriate, for the ends of justice to use ur powers of revision under section . (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act., 1979, as amended by Act No. 17 of 1993.. Since. both Civil Case No. 37 of 1990 '(o.s.) and

Civil Case No. 15 of. 1995, deal with the same subject matter, the8aleGf - honse_No.. - 1727/28, a. wakf property,. we revise the latter case, Civil Case No. 37 of 1990 and quash the ordr of the Regional Magistrate (Etiied irisdintiA) grantibg leave to sell the id property. We, therefore nullify the sate of the said house and we order that leave should be ebtained from 11è apprpr±ate41 -stermder.. ction ik of Cap.103 .. . For the avoidance of doubt, wehave quashed the decision and set aside the order f DAHOMA, J. in Civil Appeal N. 25 of 1999. Then, br using our revis&nalJGriadiotion, we have nullified the leave granted in Ciil Case No, .37 of990 (°.s.) for the sale f house N0.'727/28 and we have, therefore, re.nded the sale of the said huse, We rder that the pxlovisten6 of ction 1Lf of Qap. 13 shGuld b fLlwed and that leave sb.ould be obtaThed - ... from the apprcpfiate Minister, q . ..•••- Wr ......., . -.--- . . 33 ; \- hi However, it is legally correc-€ that courts, even the High Court, do not have authrit3r to grant leave to dispose wakf property. Under section..4 of the Wakf Property Deree (Cap. 103) such powers are vested in the relevant Minister. Therefore, the order granting leave to sell wakf property in C±Vil Case No. 37 of 1990 (o.S.) was illegal. Would this court wring its hands in utter desperation and let an illegality stand? We think not. • So, we agree S4't1

Zr. Nasser, the learnâd counsal for the respondents, that it is appropriate, for the ends of justice to use our powers of revigion unâer secti. 4. (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979, as amended by Act No. 17 of 1993. Since both Civil Case No. 37 of 1990 (o.S.) and Civil Caee No. 15 of deal with the same subject jnttez', the eale of hotse No.. 1727/28, a wakt pvoperty, w* rjse the latter case, Civil Case No. 37 f1990 and quash the oH ot Rgionai agintrat e ctii)tiiig1ave oeU tê'fd property. We, threfore nul11ie a!e o± t ordeie - that leave should be obtained frori t1 • section 1'+ofCa'p * 103 For the avoidance of dou1t, we have quaed the 4eision and . :.'. • : set aside the order of DAHOMA, J. in Civil Appeal N.. 25 of 1999. Then, b using our e1.&la1 •risditió .e1ullified the iëagrantd CjkjI ce: 37 9O(0 órislé'of s&ro7/8 ccetiiesa'e f 1h - irv.sioti oi ction'ik 'f tap. 103 hdiJ$ be' fle nd th leth(e L. U C tt $tThk F.f c'r S ! r;1 8tt4; cbJ I 7N ( 1' I cxi •" j r . n .. r9;I S. . i± bi:i;?w ., w(02C) -or . . r!i, 'woc IL Lrzup sv . i o;w: bw• L(CL t .Io_Sti lt

I IJ 0 ctI;A f'4e 4I ::i sft: ' ot , __,j •: L9r ; z+ 4 € ea !c xi avr i I t- 4 15, 1 41 en ryk 44 rati I 1 a .4. 01 - ' I We think that the ends of justice will be met if each party bears its own costs. W-.: -- DATED at DAR of Februa', 2002. A.S.L. RAMADHAN411 JV%iCE OFAPPEA J.A.MROSO

JUSTI CE OP APPEAL I-..c*.rtify that this is -a true cepy•f the original.. —I t, U7 k- IU- cb - - c--V --- - .Liij s . ........ _-.--.-.----- --p-. 4- -- ------ 0 - - pp ;7, -- -; • :' • - - •-. • .-.... -. - V . - - --•- V,1 • .r V 1 • --. I, ).S - .• • -.--••• :4 - .1- .z. • .. t. - F : 4 i, I'r 5 I-