19960830 TZHC Dar es Salaam

. l1~~ ·-.. 1. ' . "r_J,S HILAL AHM1ID I<fI/.\.Lf:';_ : ..~ i3"2"J ·."-1.~~Y. I .t as Administrator of the Estate ,. of the LATE HILAL AL - BUS.", IDY ••••••••••• o. RESFONDCNT R U L I tlT G This matter erignates in the Regional Housing Tribunal, Qf Dar es Salaam. There t~1.•.) r •3spondent, who is the landlord, applied foie . ~- assessment and fixing of ·standard rent· in respect; of premises 0n Ple', - .. -~---.... No,. 30/186010, Mshihiri Street, D:-r es Salaam. The Tribunal a·ssessed and fixed the rE:nts but -'::~1e i..::s;pellc.nts, who v,ere ten?.nts in the buildingl were aggr'ieved by the assessment. They appealed to the Housii..g Appeals Tribunal ( HAT), at Dar es Salaam but the latter Tribund ur1:1eld -bhe .·,. assessment made by -':::1:,c :?o:_-i:n:.::-.1 Tr-~-~:c.L Nothing daunted, the tenan1• have now appealed to this Court. They ar::; r~presented by Mr. Majithia learned advoeate, w~e the re~p9ndent is represen::2d · :::;_; Mr., Kilindu, learned advocate, Befoiee tlte appe~ , could be hear Mr. Maji thia sent !;:) the court the follo~:uig letter f .dated Febri1ary~7, 1996, 11 The Reisistro.r, High Court of 'I\"nz£1.nia, --·~~- --- D!~ . ~i3 {";r\.LA.:'U 1 1 Dear Sirs ; ' -RE: er;::::. APP:8 L NO. 55 OF 1995 G., ALIBH.·.: ,~ 6 OTHCR,S ••••••• oAPPELLANTS 1;·~sus :I:-:I.,;~L .'.i.HlED KH!I.LF!J'lI BUS/~IDY.. RESPONDENT .:)_,_; J\dmin:Lstr0tor of the Estate of the .- . •. 2/. . premises (Title Noo- 1qC.-)l0/:YJ 1 , cc..;ordYJ:; '.~c; th.:.. e, 'i':..::-;:Lal Government recorct,, :i.c'- th,:; H:.tional Housing Corpo:r:,tion and not the above mentionec: Res;_Jondent ,, official search c8rriecl. out :::•t tlrn Land :Rei:;i.stry is . :•.closed herewith. I have further lcrTYJ.t -::J.1: <~ -'.:::1c Gtate house ha.cl. no authority 0 in law to return the ;:c·~,::?crty acquired under the requcl:tion of Buildings Act, 1971 t::-, -c.1;:, f-::-rmor ownor 9 as was lone in this cose Section 10 ()f e~c 1.cqusition ')f Building Act, 1971 lnys down the pro:;,<T proeedure cmd it 1-:2.s not cor:1p~~L,.'. ':1ith in th~ matter. I will tho:".-::f:~·,, apply for leave of this Honourable Court to take objection based on Law that as the Respondent is not the Le.ndlci:-c~ Landlc:-rd of the Suit premises he has no locus Standi in this matterse - I will pray that this Honour":! ble court shoul..:1. allow me · to-ta1te-.. ~.~ the above mentioned objec-:-:.:-:'.l ~~s it affocts the fotUlda~...ot this Appeal. Yours sincerely, Po Mo Mi\.J!THL\ ',-_,__; ADVOC,,\TE, )··· DJ\.R ES Sll.LAIJ-1 I f\ -!.~ On the hearing date Mr. Majit:·:i::.t :::::::;;.=-;,)d on ::mi.sing the,~~ bsltougl\t up in his 'above rep:r::<'uced letter. It _was agreed, -tJ3.~ef~e thact,,UJtse\': file written subr:iisr,; c-::cs on it and they have done. so, This ru.l.pg nc,w \St• a ruling on tho rival r,i,gune~~s of the learned couP,-s,o\ on the ll0~1f, In submissions in reply to those made 'l::· Mr: K~u, _Mr• 1 I . · Majithia has restated the point thus, ,i _Tho c:rucial quest-.on ~ ,the ma~tei- is IL'\.S THE STATE HOUSI; - THE PTI>. ,-- :-1: ;\.NY LW!,L POWER TO ~ THE \ - ·.1 . PR<ZPERTY ACQUIRED UNDER THE ACQUISITION OF BUIL"::I :JGS J\p:t\·it--911 _ _ .._He ·says the answer is "NO"• :r.st~~' at which Bue l,·. Kilindu submits .~hat this rnatt~r 110\' is, is not tho ri~h.t -~~!i~.:_ _ ~Ii~-~'"-' :t!e ----! . ~; ~~- .-p'oint or issue. He goos on to co:7tont. / · -~-~ , ,,' !!'. '"- 11 In o:r.y 8Yent L,,y .Le,· i~ if _J.._;, .• : ·J leal'.'nod appealla.its :.i.s 1:,L --•-GJ.J of ~11.c vieH t 11.,:,.t th.~ p:.. .),;c(ur0 ~:.:'.:-.:~1t .:~ by the Government to return ::~:, 1:n:· 1c !..' 0 to '',:.: ~,~.spo::dent was co:ntr.-:iry to the procedure laid down in the /1.cquisition of Builc.i:a.:;:: Jlct, t> - :_)roper course of tction for him to to fr ·:ile ;,__ .:.mi t a[!a:mnst t:10 Ge v::r i:1rn tc:i question the 1 egn1 1. ty o f th D +- prr.cerlur u-, c. v ., ,_ The - Go,Tc,rnr.1,3nt or rnthcr the 1\ttorney General · would then be required to c.Ji•Jncl itself/11.imc lf. .t-1.t t1,.,_1· 1! •s stPl7'e °'b t°'~ :h" Government not a :pnrty tc t.1:0::,_ )roceedi!JGs m1c:. I thcr:..:f0rc humbly submit that this ~lonour'.'.:'.ble Cou:ct Can.,10t entert:cin such n.llc,··it~6ns in the absence of the Goverrr1cnt/Attorn ·:· .-~,:mor-:il,. The matter be'fore this IIon::;,1x::·~:J::.. C:,urt is involvinc: st·,nct rrmt under the Rent :Resftt.U::tdnn..11. J\.ct"' s:'~:o issuo whether or not tho pr\.,.si;j.;_·-~ :· 1 return an acqu.ired buildins to :::- :' ownc:r ·:.:r'_,_,r tl1c provi,:ion ~-: th.J ;·,.quisi tion of Build:i,ng Act is, in ..-.::·· --~·-:1' 0 =-~ ::r·-~nir .1; o. ;~z:.tter w:1ich ought to be a - subject of another suit involving different parties altogether.vi ,._ he-.-: · , ,nsidered the point very cnrefull~;·, in the light of the o~oe ~ a whole:,. After suc..:i c,.,r,:;:ul c-,n:c-ider,'.ltion I have reaehed the view that Mr. Kilindu is rii:/1t ln lns above cs:;_-:;0ntions. The point O'.r issue ae raised by Mr. Majithia is not one whi:::: w::ic, determined on by thr trial Tribunal. If a accu:r,t JV!r. E.- ;i'.,_:fo applic:-tion and en.tertnb-tJ.e....p~i~t a.t this stoge,, it will moon tryinr; '_t as an issu: ::.n the c;:ise. Su1h an exer~ise \-Ul1 irivo;Lve .l. ~e cnlL_:.-1_; ,f evidenc0 - for I d0.:inot consider thnt the docume:::ts annexed to the lotter of Febru_a,ry,._ 1'9~-. .. 9'1tt, or the evidence received i:-i +;his c:--.. - .) S) far cAn_ suffice to ful'.ty" , determine the issue. This e::c-rci!3: ~f tryinG the issue, :j.s one :r;, tor a separate suit, in my viow 0...11.::''. cs :::-ightly submitted by Mr, ~il~dut In an appeal all thnt an ,:1:ppell2·':, c,l:::--i is condorned with i,e to ~iwidet- and determine whether or not :i,, ~-.- : , ~0 ;..:r;:-,inc, 1 . ·T. by a lower wi,bunal/f'Ul'i were. correctly deterr::d n:::?ii u11.· If 81J issue detcrr:iirn:::d on ~ .5Uth lowel Tribunnl req1d.rArl 1 .nn n~nn,-,1, th"'t :10re -:..Tridence be c::lled in order fol!" tke appellate c0urt to :::-c 1 'i ~::::- pl:-1c,· •· .... ·. cl.efo::-:-·'.:'line it, it is alwaye ~in lhe provinli:e of the ,_;'Ju:.:·t to .direct thnt additional -eVidep.ce be called or takorr, But it i.s :. differ,: or issue, not determined ,~~ 0 .-':: ·-,-'~tc.· _.,_::_toGother.for 2. whollf new,po~t -- -- as Mr. Mqjithia is seeking to do in this case, , c,--:-;-:.cially " . ~,.,_ . cribunal ;: , b~ r <lil!3ed on 0 ~pe,•. a ~eeonct appeal . -- which :tlJ.j_s appe.~l is., J\.E_ ,,_ '. · - says, 11 in an appeaal 1!_" ·:. id party must. not __ be permitteC:. b makt: :.it a new Cfli:'.1:) o.r :a 'ase iutonstsj-est with the_,. case,.,. s~t. ()Ut_: .in D. lower -:: "',::.~t • I\. pnrty s;1.oul1 h9t •hal\ge it•- case at the appellate str:..=·,.:· 1; Sa-::--1:c.r " Th0 Law of Civil ~ " a , 8th Edn. Pt 1467. The :;;:v:•----~ rai.c _ .: 1Jy Mrt .)1a.jit"tia i~ ~th•i,t completely inconsist_cnt ,_,itL the c ... ,.:001 dlll,e, 'Which wgs" MF t "-·· r,, · L+.•1 •a~, 't for assl,.':c,;;wm:; ;,\~1c. fi:ang of standard rent. If allowed the poi~t would ch,-n ~c ::l _ ,; ~:, r:-- ,rn ono of rent assessment to one of 01rmership of the p:r-:c:_:i: ·:,. This cannot in law be allowed at this stage. fi.lso; the point rni2.:,d by :;r. i'ic<jithia i~c his letter abov0 appe_ars_ to me to be a legitimate one as between the rcs:;nnc'o:1t anc1 t~: _ ·Jational 1 Hou.sing Corporation~ I\.s for t11e a1: :::·'_J_-;xl:s, I ger..uiriely do not see hew 1 it would becmme relevant to, them; This is becc1usc whethc~ it is the respondent or the National Housing Corporntion ,.-1h:J is their iegitimate llilmdlord their status is ·inaffectedi they rems in tencnts, \vi th their obligation of payinr, rent remaining intact. A"1d is it for tenants, in any case, to decide or c:1cose who t~_cir landlord should be 'l If the National Housing Corpore1tion :iri this case, is the lawful landlord as Mr. Maji thia contendls, lot it ( t::.::: N,,tfonal Housing Corporatfon) come forward and claim ownership of the preniscs. It is not for the tenants to speak on it~; :,uh2clf Mel say it is their lec;itir:iate landlord -did not the respondent. ':.:'he NC\tionol Rousing <'_,.or·poruHon :Lt.self is there and if it thinks Jc)'.tc pr ,.:::::::_ses in "-., c SE: be lone to it in L.:,~i-t it shou,.d as I have said i i ~:~ir:1 '~:~_Jm from the respondent who is saying he is the lnndlord in r>:: ,: ct -'.Jf t 1,cso same premises. l"ir,. Maji thia would be approachi::::; \ :1.:.: matter prop:erly if he advised the National Housing Corporation to oust thG r ~ · ~ - ·:1dc,-" from his landlordship o--iet' th~ pr-emises than attomptins to .a.dvise the tenants to r}_'i tht:t as he ltw Geeksto do• . I reject the applicc:1tion ma·:'_e by Mr. Majithio. - of bri:1gi:ag up the question of ownershi:) in this i.':;\leal. The al,)pO~;l is now to pt'?re~- to hearing, unless thee, ,_:.re other proper matters to b_e t:>ai~. D.c t ............. t ' ~..;- '. ♦'Ji ' ,I' 11 ·,t . ·~ (f .,, i if' -1 ·II, II :! 1i, ,I ·, \! :t ,I . 1i .~! ,1 !, II 1' :1 \ ) 1\ :ii '~· . !l -~ .~i,I L !I ii r1 3•/8'/96 · ti T'•,"·', 'Ii Coram: Mshote ......_ L,'..;..1.. ii\ Majithie. - fo:r· ~J~c, :,1:::x,llnnt Kilindu - fer- 'the Respqndent CC: Mamimbu Mrs .. ... Rulirig delivered in the ,-1bsencc ·of the and their J\dvocntes Mr. Mojithia .-: 1.cl Mr. Kilinc'.u be:oi1 duly . .noti.fied this 30th August, 1996 • . r, -. .