LAND CASE APPEAL NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (ARUSHA SUB-REGISTRY) AT ARUSHA LAND CASE APPEAL NO.186 OF 2022 (Original Land Application No.41 of 2017 District Land and Housing Tribunal of Arusha) JACKSON W. TILLYA............................................... APPELLANT VERSUS MWANAIDI JUMA (Administratrix of the Estate of the late HAMISI ATHUMANI MUSARI) ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 24/05 & 25/06/2024 KIWONDE, J.: The appellant, Jackson W. Tillya, being aggrieved by the decision of the trial District Land and Housing Tribunal for Arusha, has appealed to this court based on six (6) grounds of appeal to wit: 1. That the trial tribunal erred in law and in fact in failing to properly evaluate the evidence adduced at the trial. 2. That the land application by the respondent and subsequent proceedings were wrongly filed and determined without joining the necessary parties. 3. That the trial tribunal erred when heard the respondent who said to be administratrix of the late Hamisi Athumani Musari while she had no right to administer the plot of land belonging to the deceased. 4. That the trial tribunal erred when entertained this matter without considering the appellants objection on the document (annexture P2) which had no date, place and against format and wrongly heard and decided the case. 5. That the trial tribunal grossly erred when failed to consider that the appellant had already distributed the estates of the late William Abednego Tillya long before the filing of the respondent's Probate and Administration cause No. 100/2017. 6. The appeal is timeously (sic) filed. The appellant prayed the appeal be allowed, judgment and decree of the trial tribunal be set aside, cost of the case in the trial tribunal and of this court. 2 During hearing the appellant was unrepresented while the respondent enjoyed the legal service of Aziza Shakale, learned counsel. For the purposes of putting the records clear, the appellant dropped of the sixth ground of appeal and argued the rest five. I have thoroughly gone through the records and the submissions which I now turn to consider in response to the grounds of appeal. From the oral submissions and the trial tribunal records, the main issue for determination is whether the appeal finds merit or otherwise. In my deliberations, I opt to begin with the fourth ground of appeal. The appellant said the document, exhibit P2 was admitted in evidence and acted upon despite his objection for it bore no date, place, format, wrongly used to decide the case. The appellant said that the WILL was fake. It had to be referred to the Forensic Bureau to ascertain the author but his arguments were not considered. The counsel for the respondent argued that this ground of appeal lacks merits since the document proved the size of the suit land. When I read the trial tribunal proceedings, I found that when the document was tendered at the trial, the appellant did not object its admissibility. The document formed part of evidence capable of being relied upon in the decision. The weight of the document was left to the 3 chairman to determine. The arguments that he objected the same but the reasons for were not considered are vague. The records do not show if he objected. In law, the court or tribunal records are sacrosanct and not easily impeachable. So, this ground of appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed. As to the second ground of appeal, the appellant argued that there were necessary parties who had to be joined in the case. These, he said include Mama Lemuna who gave the land to his father, the tenants who know who leased them the house, the neighbours surrounding the house and that the case was to be filed against his father while alive and them, the children. This argument was opposed by the counsel for the respondent that the appellant is the administrator of his late father's estates, so, he is the right person sued. Indeed, the appellant does not know who is the necessary party to the case. The neighbours and tenants can be witnesses in the case but they cannot be sued for nothing. The respondent had no cause of action against them. Besides that, the appellant is the administrator of deceased father's estates which is in dispute, thus, he was rightly sued. This ground of appeal too fails for want of merits. 4 The third ground of appeal is devoid of merits. It is not in dispute that the respondent is administratrix of the estates of her deceased husband Hamisi Athumani Musari and she contests for the house in dispute that it was given to her husband by Mama Lemuna. The property the appellant claims to belong to his late father. Thus, the respondent was right to sue to recover the suit property of her late husband. She was not administering the estates of the appellant's father, rather, it fell into dispute when she included it as part of her deceased husband's estates. For that reason, the ground of appeal is found devoid of merits. Coming to fifth ground of appeal, the main concern by the appellant is that he had distributed the landed property to the heirs, Willy and Raymond. In other words, he tried to argue that after administration of the deceased estates, his capacity ended there and he could not be sued in this case. When the trial tribunal chairman rejected this fact, he reasoned that this was not pleaded in the appellant's defence that the land in dispute had been distributed to the heirs. Had this been pleaded in defence at the trial, the respondent would have known the proper parties to be joined in the case. The appellant continued to answer the case as if he is concerned with the estate of Elimringi. Even at the trial, those children did not come to testify on that. 5 Leave that alone, the respondent sued the appellant as administrator of the estates of his deceased father and not Elimringi Tillya. Therefore, she was right to do so as in 2015 the probate cause in relation to William Abednego Tillya had not yet been closed. For the analysis and reasons above, this ground of appeal lacks merits. Finally, as to the first ground of appeal, I find and hold that the trial tribunal chairman properly evaluated and analyse the evidence on record. There is no reason to fault him. As a result, the appeal is found without merits and it is hereby dismissed with cost. Da^ertaMrusha this 25th June 2024 F. H. KIWONDE JUDGE 25/06/2024 6