Gwalila Ndilana (As administrator of the estates of the late Himu Jidamabi Magolanga) v Richard Kamama and Jeremiah Kamama

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT SHINYANGA LAND APPEAL NO. 000026690 OF 2025 GWALILA NDILANA(AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATES OF THE RATE HIMU JIDAMABI MAGOLANGA) .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS RICHARD KAMAMA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT JEREMIAH KAMAMA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT JUDGMENT MWAKAHESYA, J JUDGMENT Date of Last Order 23.06.2026 Date of Judgment:10.09.2026 MWAKAHESYA, J.: The appellant, Gwalila Ndilana (administrator of the estate of the late Himu Jidamabi Magolanga), is appealing against the judgment of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Kishapu (the DLHT) in Land Application No. 12 of 2024 delivered on 28.08.2025 wherein the DLHT declared the respondents herein to be the lawful owners of a piece of land measuring 69 acres located within Jijongo hamlet, Talaga ward, Kishapu District (the suit land). A brief background of the events that culminated into this appeal is that at the DLHT the respondents instituted Land Application No. 12 of 2024 claiming to be lawful owners of the suit land with the first respondent owning 21 acres and the second respondent owning 48 acres. The said parcels of land having been bought at different times from different persons. However, in the year 2014 the appellant emerged alongside one Mahiti Ndilanha Page. 1 claiming the suit land. The rival claims culminated into the filing of Land Application No. 12 of 2024 by the two respondents. The first respondent (Richard Kamama) was adamant that he had purchased his portion of the suit land from the late Philipho in the year 1985, while the second respondent (Jeremiah Kamama) was of the position that he bought his share from one Jigaka Himu in the year 1983. At the end of the trial, as alluded before, the DLHT found in favor of the respondents. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds: 1. That, the trial tribunal erred in law by proceeding to determine the case in which the respondents herein, failed to join the necessary parties as respondent in the trial tribunal who are sellers of the disputed land, which is contrary to law; 2. That, the trial tribunal misdirected itself both in law and fact by drawing conclusion against the appellant based solely on the allegations made by the respondents, while failing to thoroughly consider the substantive issues concerning the ownership of the disputed land, particularly adduced by the appellants; 3. That, the trial tribunal erred both in law and fact by reaching his decisions without clear analyzation of the evidence adduced by appellant regarding ownership of a disputed land as an administrator of the estate of the late Jidamabi Magolanga; and 4. That, the trial tribunal erred in law and fact by disregarding the fact that each respondent has his own land of which every land has different boundaries but sued under the same case which is against the law. The appeal was, by consensus, argued by way of written submissions with the parties adhering to the agreed schedule. However, for reasons to be disclosed in a short while, I do not find it necessary to reproduce the parties’ submissions. Having gone through the record of the DLHT and specifically exhibit M4 which is a ruling of the DLHT in Miscellaneous Land Application No. 04 of 2024, which was an interlocutory application by the respondents seeking for the DLHT to restrain the appellant from selling the suit land or evicting them from the suit land, the learned DLHT chairperson observed that the ward tribunal had decided the dispute instead of mediating and assisting the parties at reaching a mutual acceptable solution. The DLHT suo motu revised the decision of the Talaga Ward Tribunal and quashed the same. It went further to remark that it Page. 2 would be futile for the parties to attempt mediation before the ward tribunal and such a move would be a wastage of time. It then directed the parties to file a land application before it. Furthermore, exhibit M5 which are two certificates of mediation, do not show if the appellant ever appeared before the Talaga Ward Tribunal as he never signed the same despite the two respondents singing their corresponding certificates. I invited the parties to address this court on the propriety of Land Application No. 12 of 2024 in light of section 13(4) of the Land Disputes Courts Act (the LDCA) and the observations made by the court. Submitting on behalf of the appellant Ms. Gloria Ikanda, learned counsel for the appellant, was of the view that both certificates that make up exhibit M5 tendered at the DLHT, certifying mediation at the ward tribunal were not signed by the appellant. To the learned counsel, this is fatal and raises doubts if the appellant passed through the ward tribunal in an attempt to have an amicable solution to the land dispute before the dispute was file the DLHT. On the second issue, it was her submission that the ward tribunal decided the matter instead of mediating it. To the learned counsel, this was against section 13(4) of the Land Disputes Courts Act. And as to the way forward, it was her submission that this court should nullify the proceedings of the DLHT. While the first respondent beseeched the court to proceed with determining the appeal, regardless of what transpired at the ward tribunal, the second respondent was of the view that since the errors were committed by the ward tribunal, he ought not suffer for the same. Having heard the parties on the issue of law, it is trite law that section 13(4) of the LDCA makes it mandatory that land disputes have to pass through the ward tribunals for mediation before they are instituted in district land and housing tribunals, following failure of mediation. The provision reads: “Notwithstanding subsection (1), the District Land and Housing Tribunal shall not hear any proceeding affecting the title to or any interest in land unless the ward tribunal has certified that it has failed to settle the matter amicably: Provided that, where the ward tribunal fails to settle a land dispute within thirty days from the date the matter was instituted, the aggrieved party may proceed to institute the land dispute without the certificate from the ward tribunal.” [Emphasis mine] The Page. 3 provision is couched in mandatory terms which leaves no room for derogation. Furthermore, as the provision clearly expresses, the function of the ward tribunal is to settle the matter amicably and upon failure to do so it has to certify to that effect. As alluded previously, the ward tribunal decided the dispute between the parties by declaring the owners of the suit land instead of mediating. In Ismail Mulengela vs Pius B. Ngeze (Land Revision No. 7391 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8536 (12 December 2025) TanzLII, it was held that: “…the Ward Tribunals, as at the moment, have the role of mediating the parties to the land dispute. They are precluded from hearing evidence and deciding the land disputes before them.” The infractions did not end there, as the DLHT upon realizing the breach of the law, proceeded to determine that any attempt by the parties to mediation would prove futile and the parties could simply proceed to pursue their rights at the DLHT. This was erroneous, as the DLHT cannot condone a clear violation of the law. What it advised the parties was misguided. I should also add that, in what should be a best practice, the relevant certificate of the ward tribunal should be signed by both parties taking part and if either party refuses to sign then there should be an endorsement to that effect by the ward tribunal itself, thus giving credence to the notion that the parties passed therein. Considering the above, Land Application No. 12 of 2024 was therefore instituted in clear violation of the law and the proceedings and subsequent decision and orders cannot be allowed to stand. I hereby nullify the proceedings of the DLHT, quash the judgment and set aside the decree and any subsequent orders arising therefrom. Since the issue of law was raised by the court, each party is to bear its own costs. It is so ordered. DATED at SHINYANGA this 10th day of September, 2026. Dated at SHINYANGA this 10th of September 2026 . Page. 4 N. L MWAKAHESYA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 5