Mmari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL N0.8906 OF 2024 (Arising from Land Application No.344 of 2016, of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kinondoni) GOODLUCK MMARI..........................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF TANZANIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD............................................................................... RESPONDENT EX-PARTE JUDGMENT Date of Last Order:15.07.2024 Date ofJudgment: 26.07.2024 T.N. MWENEGOHA, J: The Appeal at hand is based on the following grounds; - 1. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and in fact by deciding the matter based on contradictory evidence of PWl(Debora Beda (Matheo Simon), on a specific time the land was gifted to the respondent. 2. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and in fact by delivering the decision in favour of the applicant who failed to prove how he acquired the suit land. 3. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and in fact by delivering the judgment in favour of the applicant relying on mere statements given by PW2. i 4. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and in facts by entertaining a matter without ascertaining the size of the land in dispute. 5. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and in facts by failure to consider the weight of documentary evidence of the appellant. 6. That, the Trial Tribunal erred in law and in facts in deciding the matter in favour of the respondent by considering false allegations and attack of the appellant witness (DW3). The Appeal was heard by way of written submissions. Advocate Shabani Mlembe, appeared for the appellant. The respondent on the other hand did not file their reply submissions within time, hence this Judgment was prepared. Submitting on the 1st ground, Mr. Lembe for the appellant insisted that, the testimony of PW1 Debora Beda regarding on the time she gave the suit land by way of gift to the respondent is contradictory. That, she stated to have transferred the said land to the respondent in 2023, while PW1 stated that the said gift was made in 2011. This contradiction is vital in deciding the matter but was ignored by the Trial Tribunal. He went on to argue on the 2nd ground that, the Tribunal declared the respondent as a lawful owner of the suit land in absence of any concrete proof. This is contrary to section 110(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E 2019. As for the 3rd and 6th ground, it was argued that, the Trial Tribunal was wrong to rely on the mere statements of PW2 and decide in favour of the respondent. The said witness appeared to know nothing about the ownership of the suit land. His evidence needed corroboration. 2 Lastly on the 5th ground, it was argued that, the evidence on record by the respondent was not supported by any document to prove that the vendor Matheo Simon was given the suit property as gift in 2006 by one Elizabeth Yona. Above all, the evidence shows that, the respondent did not do any due diligence before buying the suit land. I have considered the submissions of the appellant and also went through the records from the Trial Tribunal. The issue for determination is whether the Appeal has merit or not. In answering this question, I prefer to consolidate all five grounds of Appeal and discuss them together. I do so, because all of have focused on evaluation and analysis of the evidence presented by the parties during the Trial. That, the Trial Tribunal did not analyse and evaluate the said evidence properly, hence decided wrongly in favour of the respondent. Indeed, I revisited the testimonies of the witnesses presented before the Trial Tribunal by both parties to so as to scrutinize the evidence against the contention by the appellant, that the Trial Tribunal did not make a proper analysis and evaluation of the evidence on records. I did so, because this is a first Appeal and I am duty bound to rehear the case through scrutinizing the evidence given at the Trial Tribunal, before arriving to my conclusion, see Standard Chartered Bank Tanzania Limited versus National oil Tanzania Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2008, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Dar es Salaam (unreported). After going through the testimonies of PW1-PW5 for the respondent who was the applicant at the Trial Tribunal and DW1-DW4, witnesses for the appellant/respondent before the Tribunal, I have come to a settled 3 conclusion that, the Trial Tribunal did evaluate and analyse the evidence on record properly. The respondent as an applicant managed to show how she acquired the suit land. That is by way of Gift, from one Debora Beda Msuya (PW1) Also she (PW1) showed how she acquired the said land and why she gave the same as gift to the respondent. That, she purchased it from Matheo Simon (PW3). Further, Mr. Matheo Simon explained how the said land came into his ownership. Above all, there were documents showing these transactions, a gift deed transferring the suit land from PW1 to the respondent (Exhibit P2) and Sale Agreement from PW3 to PWl(Exhibit Pl). With this evidence, the respondent in my opinion, managed to prove her claim against the appellant on balance of probability as required in civil cases. Her evidence was heavier than that of the appellant, hence the Trial Tribunal was right to declare her as a rightful owner of the suit land, see Hemedi Said vs. Mohamedi Mbilu (1984) TLR 113. With evidence presented and what is in the record, this Court cannot find any reasons to overturn the findings of the Trial Tribunal. Rather, all five grounds of Appeal, as presented by the appellant above are denied as they are devoid of merits. In the end, the Appeal is dismissed with costs and the Decision of the Trial Tribunal is upheld accordingly. KWT4WENEG0HA JUDGE 26/07/2024 4