godfrey million ngowi vs municipal council of arusha 2007 tzhc 453 18 june 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA CIVIL CASE NO. 39 OF 2002 GODFREY MILLION NGOWI..........................PLAINTIFF VERSUS THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ARUSHA. }..................... DEFENDANT R U L IN G . R. SHEIKH. I. On lO /lc /2 0 0 6 when this matter came up for hearing Mr. Ojare learned counsel for the defendant sought an adjournment so as to ascertain whether this suit falls under the provisions of the Land Act 1999 and the Land Disputes Courts Act 2002. On 4 /1 2 /2 0 0 6 when the matter came up for mention both the plaintiff and Mr. Ojare learned counsel for the defendant sought and were granted leave to address the court by written subm issions as to whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thereafter the respective parties filed written subm issions for and against the point in issue. The plaintiff has basically refuted the allegation that the suit arises out of a dispute concerning land. He contended that the reliefs claimed are dam ages for a wrongful act done against the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff has further argued that in any case the suit having been commenced on 10/10/2002 before the coming into force of the Land Disputes Courts Act 2002, this court cannot be said not to have jurisdiction to try and determine the case. Mr. Ojare learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that going by the contents of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 it is clear that the reliefs claimed are in respect of the alleged expenses incurred by the plaintiff in constructing a house inter alia on a parcel of land which had been allocated to the plaintiff by the defendant. He argued that the plaint demonstrates that the claims arise out of a dispute concerning land. Mr. Ojare added that although the plaintiff’s suit had been properly instituted in this court on 10/10/2002 before the Land Disputes Courts Act came into operation on 1/10/2003, this court has ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain the matter under section 54 (3) and (4) of the Land Disputes Courts Act. Learned counsel argued that even the extension of time envisaged under section 54 (3) and (4) is no longer applicable as the two years’ extension envisaged had expired. He was emphatic that this court can no longer continue to entertain this suit, that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the case. Indeed a lot more was argued by the respective parties in their written subm issions, which in my opinion is not material in the determination of the matter under consideration. Suffice it to say that it is clearly demonstrated by the plaint that the plaintiff’s claim is for compensation for costs incurred in the development of plot No. 398 Block B Njiro, Arusha and dam ages for loss incurred as a result of having been wrongfully allocated by the defendant a plot which was already owned by TANESCO. I am satisfied that the claims in this suit are or arise out of a dispute concerning land. However as pointed out by Mr. Ojare the suit was initially properly filed in this court on 10/10/2002, as that was before the coming into force of the Land Disputes Courts Act 2002 which came into force on 1/10/2003. Having said that I must add that the two year grace period and further extension given under section 54(3) and(4) of the Act having expired this court can no longer exercise jurisdiction in this matter which arises out of a Land dispute jurisdiction for which is now vested by law in the Land Division. There is no point in further delaying the inevitable. This suit is accordingly hereby struck out with no order as no costs. R. SHEIKH, JUDGE 1 2 /0 7 /2 0 0 7 . Ruling read in the presence of the plaintiff and in the absence of the defendant, with Vero B/C being also present. * X V 5 R. SHEIKH, o TUDGE 1 8 /0 7 /2 0 0 7 Mk.