john godson kiondo va alice godson kiondo and 10 others 2023 tzhc 23083 29 november 2023

IN THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

JUDICIARY

HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

MOSHI DISTRICT REGISTRY

AT MOSHI LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2022 (C/F Application No. 06 of 2020 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Same at Same) JOHN GODSON KIONDO…………………….………...……… APPELLANT

VERSUS 1. ALICE GODSON KIONDO 2. MSHAMI GODSON KIONDO 3. GRACE GODSON KIONDO 4. HELLEN GODSON KIONDO 5. UPENDO GODSON KIONDO 6. KIBOKO GODSON KIONDO RESPONDENTS 7. TUVAKO MANONGI 8. CHARLES CHAMBUA 9. WILSON SADIKI 10. NAOMBA ELISIKIA 11. HALIMA MBARAWA

JUDGEMENT Date of Last Order: 12.10.2023 Date of Judgment: 29.11.2023 MONGELLA, J. In the District Land and Housing Tribunal (the Tribunal, hereinafter), the appellant herein sued the respondents over three pieces of land located in different areas within Same District, to wit; a farm Page 1 of 21 measuring 11232 sqm located at Hendiva area at Goha village, Mnyamba Ward; a 1 ½ acre farm located at Bagamoyo Kihurio and a farm measuring 9,168 sqm located at Mshewa village. The estimated value of the three pieces of land is T.shs. 50,000,000/=. He sought for the Tribunal to make the following orders; declare that the suit lands belong to Kiondo family and are owned jointly by family members; declare the sale of farms done by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd , 4th and 6th respondents void; prohibit the purported sale by the 5th respondent; declaration that the 7th to 11th respondents are trespassers to Kiondo family land; permanent restraining the respondents from entering and interfering with the suit land; respondents to pay general damages for unlawful use/transfer of the disputed land; the respondents to bear costs of the suit and; any other reliefs the Tribunal deems fit to grant. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that: the appellant together with the 1st up to 6th respondents are among the 9 surviving children of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo who died testate in 2017. His estate

was administered vide Probate Cause No. 08 of 2018 at the Ndungu primary court in Same district. The late Godson Kiondo had several farms in different areas. Allegedly, he had prohibited the sale of the lands in his oral Will, but the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th respondents sold the same to the 7th up to 11th respondents, while the 5th respondent was amid then process to dispose a piece of land. The appellant considers the transactions unlawful. Page 2 of 21 The respondents denied the appellant’s claim and the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter on both sides. The appellant gave his evidence as SM1 and tendered three exhibits being: Minutes in which the oral will was reduced to writing which was admitted as Exhibit A1; a letter objecting the sale of land at Bagamoyo and Karamba, admitted as Exhibit A2 and; a Letter addressed to the trial Tribunal on his intention to sue the administrators of the Estate of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo, admitted as Exhibit A4. He also called two witnesses: SM2, Samuel Godson Kiondo, his brother who tendered the Judgement and Proceedings of Ndungu primary court in Same in Probate Cause No. 08 of 2018 collectively admitted as Exhibit A4 and; SM3, Elizabeth Godson Kiondo who is his sister. The respondent had ten witnesses; SU1, Tuvako Nathaniel Manongi (SU2’s Husband and 7th respondent) who tendered a sale agreement between the 5th respondent and

the 4th respondent and NMB Bank receipts, admitted as exhibit D1; SU2, Upendo Tuvako Manongi (5th respondent), the appellant’s sister; SU3, Charles Chambua (8th respondent); SU4, Wilson Sadiki Elitumaini; SU5, Naomba Eliesikia Keu (10th respondent) who tendered Probate Form No. VI issued in Probate Cause No. 08/2018, which was admitted as Exhibit D2; SU6, Halima Mbarawa (11th respondent); SU7 Mshami Godson Kiondo (2nd respondent), brother of the appellant; SU8; Alice Godson Kiondo (1st Respondent) who tendered:- the Letters of Administration Form No. IV, admitted as Page 3 of 21 Exhibit D3, statement of account, Probate Form No. VI admitted as Exhibit D4, Ruling of Ndungu primary court rendered on 28.09.2019 admitted as Exhibit D5; Sale agreement between the 6th and 11th respondents and herself admitted as exhibit D6; SU9, Kiboko Godson Kiondo (6th respondent); SU10, Hellen Godson Kiondo (4th respondent) who tendered memorandum of appeal from Kalemawe Ward Tribunal in the trial Tribunal, admitted as Exhibit D7; Sale agreement between herself and 9th respondent admitted as exhibit D8, sale agreement between herself and one Eliabu Mhina admitted as Exhibit D9 and sale agreement between herself and the 5th respondent admitted as Exhibit D10. The trial Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove his claim and thus dismissed the application with costs. Aggrieved, the appellant

has preferred this appeal on the following grounds: 1. That, the Honourable trial District land and Housing Tribunal erred in law and in facts for finding in favour of the respondents herein while no evidence on record adduced to favour them over the disputed pieces of land. (sic) 2. That, the trial Tribunal erred in law and in fact for not giving clear legal reasoning on the decision which he arrived to, which is contradictory to the facts and evidence adduced whereas he said the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to examine the validity of the will tendered in the probate cause hence used Page 4 of 21 the probate cause verdicts to give his decisions hence arrived into a bad decision. (sic) 3. That, the trial Tribunal erred in law and in fact by failure to articulate the whole trial proceedings.

4. That, the trial Tribunal erred in law and in fact by reaching into a decision based on contradictory evidence adduced by the respondents, whereas in the proceedings the respondents said the oral will of their late fathers restrict them from selling the disputed pieces of land hence the decision says the sale was legal. (sic) 5. That, the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal is bad for failure to take into account and consider/analyze evidence given on trial by the appellant. The appeal was argued orally whereby the appellant was represented by Ms. Angel Mongi, while the 1st up to 6th respondents were represented by Mr. Erick Felix Chale and the 7th to 11th respondents by Ms. Nabera Werema, all learned advocates. Arguing on the 1st ground, Ms. Mongi contended that there was no evidence on record proving that the 1st to 6th respondents had full ownership of the suit land. She claimed that beneficiaries were only given the right to use the land, hence selling of the same was done in contravention of what was agreed by the family. She contended that the trial Tribunal failed to consider the evidence before it which Page 5 of 21 included the proceedings and judgement of the court in the probate cause. She cited the case of Lutter Symphorian Nelson vs. Attorney General and Another [2000] TLR 419 whereby it was held that a judgement must show that the trial judge or

magistrate applied his mind to the evidence on record and did not ignore any material evidence before it. Addressing the 2nd ground, Ms. Mongi challenged the Tribunal for making a finding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of the Will as it is not a probate court, but at the same time proceeded to use the decision of the probate court to determine the case. She made refence to page 5 of the Tribunal judgement whereby form No. V and VI were used by the Tribunal to determine that the probate cause was closed. Ms. Mongi contended that Order XX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E 2019] provides for form and content of a good judgement in the sense that it must contain the facts, points for determination, the decision and the reason thereto. He was of view that in the present case, the Tribunal judgement lacked legal reasoning as the reason advanced was contradictory. She cited the case of Nkungu vs. Mohamed [1984] TLR 46 whereby the court stated the components of a judgement and averred that the same were missing in the Tribunal judgement. Concerning the 3rd ground, Ms. Mongi further challenged the Tribunal for failure to articulate the appellant’s evidence. She Page 6 of 21 contended that the 1st to 6th respondents had agreed to the fact that there was a Will left by their deceased father and none of them protested the said Will before the probate

court as they gave their evidence. That, this was also stated before the trial Tribunal, but it was not articulated in the judgement. She contended that the trial Tribunal ought to have assigned reasons to accept or deny their arguments, a stance she supported with the case of Tanzania Breweries Ltd vs. Anthony Nyingi [2016] TLS 99. Submitting on the 4th ground, she faulted the Tribunal for basing its decision on contradictory evidence adduced by the respondents. She averred that the appellant told the Tribunal that the 1st to 6th respondents had stated before the probate court that the oral Will prohibited them from selling the pieces of land and both the proceedings and the judgement of the probate court were also tendered at the Tribunal and admitted as exhibits. However, still the Tribunal contradicted itself by holding that the sale was legal. She contended further that the sale of the suit lands was incumbered with the rights of other people and thus the transfer of the same to other parties was a nullity. She supported her stance with the case of Edward Sijaona Mwinamila (Administrator of the Late Idd Almas Katende) vs. Abdul Idd Almas Katende (Land Case Appeal 59 of 2019) [2021] TZHC 3613 TANZLII. On the last ground, Ms. Mongi challenged the Tribunal on the ground that it failed to analyse the evidence before it. She Page 7 of 21 complained that the appellant’s evidence

was ignored. Explaining further, she contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that the 1st to 6th respondents violated a valid Will of their deceased father which barred them from disposing the pieces of land. She averred that the appellant’s evidence was ignored contrary to the settled position in Goodluck Kyando vs. Republic [2006] TLR 363 that all witnesses are entitled to credence and must be believed and their testimony accepted, unless there is good reason including if the evidence is improbable or has been contradicted. In that respect, she prayed for the appeal to be allowed with costs and the Tribunal judgement be reversed. On behalf of the 1st to 6th respondents, Mr. Chale opposed the appeal. He began his submissions by stating that the appellant is a mere beneficiary like all other children of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo. That, the appellant was also not the administrator of the estate of their late father. Referring to page 15 of the Tribunal proceedings, he argued that the appellant testified that the administrator of the late Kiondo distributed his estate among the heirs and there had not been any complaints over the distribution of the estate. In the premises, he had the view that the suit lands are plots given to the heirs of the deceased. Replying to the 1st ground, he averred that the heirs of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo did testify before the Tribunal

and produced documentary evidence thereto. That, exhibit D3 proved that two persons had been appointed as administrators of their late father’s Page 8 of 21 estate. That, Exhibit D4, Form No. VI showed how the estate was distributed among the heirs including the appellant and that, Exhibit D5 was the Ruling of Ndungu primary court, which closed the probate cause. Mr. Chale challenged that all the Exhibits tendered were not objected before the Tribunal rendering the ground devoid of merit. Remarking to the case of Lutter Symphorian vs. Attorney General (supra) he further contended that the case is irrelevant to the case at hand as the trial chairman did evaluate the evidence of both parties. Addressing the 2nd ground, Mr. CHale contended that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is set under Section 33 (1) of the Land Dispute Courts Act [Cap 216 RE 2019]. That, there is no indication under the said provision that the Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to entertain probate matters, including the validity of oral Wills, hence the chairman was right to state that it lacked jurisdiction to determine a matter of Wills. He supported his averment with the case of Jonas Joshua Bushambali vs. Andombwisye Mwakaselo & Another (Land Appeal 53 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 781 TANZLII. He contended that the case of Nkungu vs. Mohamed (supra) was inapplicable in the circumstances. As to the 3rd ground,

Mr. Chale averred that the Tribunal proceedings are regulated by the Land Disputes Court (The District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, 2003 and thus Ms. Mongi should have mentioned the relevant regulation which was offended by the Tribunal. He added that instead of mentioning the Page 9 of 21 relevant regulation that was offended, Ms. Mongi focussed on the oral Will and the averments by the heirs that there was an oral Will. He was of considered view that the alleged oral Will lacked qualifications as such because an oral Will ought to have four witnesses, two of which are relatives of the testator. That, it was in such context that it did not meet the necessary qualifications rendering the probate court not recognising it. He concluded on this ground saying that the trial chairman was correct in his approach to focus on the Tribunal regulations. As to the 4th ground, Mr. Chale argued that the respondents did tender oral and documentary evidence and the same had no contradictions. He challenged Ms. Mongi for failure to point out the specific contradictions. He contended that the case of Edward Sijaona Mwinamila (supra) cited by the appellant was irrelevant to the case at hand as in the cited case, it was clearly indicated that there was an oral Will and the brother acted contrary to the same and thus it was correct for the sisters to sue him. In this case, there was no

any oral Will approved by any court. Arguing on the last ground of appeal, Mr. Chale was of view that the Tribunal analysed the evidence of both sides. He made reference to page 4 of the Tribunal Judgement whereby Exhibit A1 tendered by the appellant was analysed. That, the exhibit contained the content of the oral Will. Referring to page 6 of the Tribunal decision, he contended that the Tribunal discussed exhibit A4 tendered by the appellant, which was similar to exhibit D5 Page 10 of 21 tendered by the respondents. Thus, he had the stance that it was not true that the evidence of the appellant was ignored. On those bases he found the case of Goodluck Kyando vs. Republic (supra) being irrelevant to the circumstances of the case at hand. His submission was finalised by a prayer that the appeal be dismissed with costs and the Tribunal decision be upheld. Replying on behalf of the 7th to 11th respondents, Ms. Werema commenced by elaborating that her clients had been sued for illegally purchasing land from the children of the Late Godson Kiondo Kintu. She mentioned the said children to be the 1st to 6th respondents. However, she said, two of her clients, that is, the 7th and 8th respondents, did not purchase anything from the heirs. Replying to the 1st ground, she averred that the 9th to 11th respondents legally purchased the said plots of land from the 1st to 6th respondents,

save for the 5th respondent, who did not sell any land, but was nonetheless was sued. The respondents adduced exhibits D3, D4 and D5 which were tendered before the Tribunal to prove the same thus it was not true that the Tribunal favoured the respondent without any evidence. He contended that the evidence on record supported the respondents. As to the 2nd ground, Ms. Werema supported the Tribunal’s finding that it was not a probate court and thus lacked jurisdiction to deal with validity of a Will. She argued that, in fact, there is nowhere in the decision of Ndungu primary court in Probate Cause No. 8 of Page 11 of 21 2018 that the said Will was validated. She added that no witness was called before the probate court to prove the existence of the said Will. That, if at all the appellant was not satisfied with the decision and the distribution of the estate of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo, the proper forum would be appealing to another probate court instead of filing this matter in the Tribunal. She averred that by not challenging the decision of the probate court, it is evident that he was satisfied with the distribution of the deceased’s estate. She contended further that in the Probate and Administration of Estates Act [Cap 352 RE 2002] the District Land and Housing Tribunal is not included in the list on entities equipped with the jurisdiction to determine probate matters

and thus it could not determine the validity of a Will. In that respect, she found Tribunal being right in avoiding equipping itself with such powers. Replying to the 3rd ground, Ms. Werema contended that Ms. Mongi did not cite any provision of the law that was violated by the Tribunal leading to its failure to articulate the whole proceedings. She contended that no provision of the DHLT Regulations was contravened by the trial Tribunal. On the 4th ground, she elaborated that several plots of land had been distributed among the heirs of the Late Godson Kintu Kiondo and the same was done by the two administrators; Alice Godson Kiondo and Samuel Godson Kiondo and everyone including the appellant was satisfied with the distribution. That, the 9th to 11th Page 12 of 21 respondents purchased the plots bequeathed to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th respondents who sold their shares to them. That the appellant’s plots remain intact. She added that the 9th to 11th respondents relied on Exhibits D3, D4 and, D5, Form No. 6 from Probate Cause No. 08/2018 that showed how the estate of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo was distributed, including the land as clarified at Page 5 of the Tribunal decision. She contended that the 9th to 11th respondents were bona fide purchasers of the plots of land. She cited the case of Suzana S. Waryoba vs. Shija Sawala, Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2017 (unreported) in

which the Court of Appeal sitting at Mwanza defined a bona fide purchaser. In the end, she argued that the procedure for sale of the said plots of land involved local government leaders who validated the sale rendering it legal. Addressing the 5th ground, Ms. Werema averred that the trial tribunal analysed the evidence adduced by both parties and their witnesses. She referred to page 4 whereby the trial chairman stated that Exhibit A1 was tendered by the appellant which had contents of the oral Will. She further referred to page 7 of the Tribunal decision in which the trial chairman stated that the exhibit contained only the 2nd page of the said will. That, in the circumstances, the chairman reasoned that the same meant that the contents of the alleged Will may have not been testified by the heirs. She again made reference to page 6 of the Tribunal decision whereby the Tribunal remarked that Exhibit A1 was the same as exhibit D5, hence Page 13 of 21 evident that the Tribunal analysed the evidence from both sides. She had a conclusion that the ground of appeal deserves to be dismissed. She prayed for the Tribunal decision to be upheld. Rejoining, on the 1st and 2nd grounds Ms. Mongi, still maintained her position that the appellant’s evidence was ignored. She insisted that the trial Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction, but ended up delivering its judgement relying on

Exhibit D3, D4 and D5 which were derived from the probate cause while disregarding Exhibit A4, the probate court proceedings in which the existence of the said Will was not objected. She was thus of view that the Tribunal failed to give a clear legal reason on the decision it arrived at. She further argued that the Tribunal decision was contradictory to the facts and evidence adduced. That, the Tribunal used exhibit D3, D4 and D5 to deliver its judgement despite stating that it was not a probate court. On the 3rd ground, she emphasized on the holding in Tanzania Breweries Limited vs. Anthony Nyingi [2016] TLS LR 99 whereby it was stated that the court must give reasons for its decision. She maintained that the trial Tribunal did not accord any reason for its decision. As to the 4th ground, she averred that buyers ought to have been aware as they bought plots of land from persons without good title as they were not legal owners, but mere occupiers of the said plots. Page 14 of 21 As to the final ground, Ms. Mongi maintained that the trial Tribunal disregarded the documents tendered by the appellant as being of probate nature. She reiterated the case of Goodluck Kyando vs. Republic (supra) maintaining that all witnesses are entitled to credence. Lastly, she maintained her prayer for the court to allow the appeal with costs and reverse the judgement of the trial Tribunal. After

considering the grounds of appeal, the trial Tribunal record and the submissions by the parties’ counsels, I find it convenient to jointly resolve all grounds of appeal as they all address questions of analysis of evidence rooted at answering whether the trial Tribunal correctly found in favour of the respondents or rather whether the appellant proved his claims. The whole case is based on the following undeniable facts; one, the that the appellant, SM2, SM3 and the 1st to 6th Respondents are the nine (9) surviving children of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo and born of one mother. Two, the late Godson Kintu Kiondo, who demised on 07.01.2017, left multiple assets including the suit lands. Three, there was Probate Cause No. 08/2018 before Ndungu primary court in Same District, in which two of the siblings; SM2 and the 1st respondent were appointed as administrators of the estate of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo, as seen in Exhibit D3. Four, that the estate was distributed among the heirs and the Probate Cause closed on 28.09.2019, as evidenced in the Ruling of the probate court delivered on 28.09.2019, Exhibit D5. Page 15 of 21 What seems to be the issue herein is that the appellant is alleging that the late Godson Kintu Kiondo left an oral Will in which they were not to sell any of the land they inherited. Further, that the female children were not to obtain title deeds over the

pieces of land, but could use the same and upon their demise, the same would be returned to the family of Godson Kintu Kiondo. The children of the female heirs would only be allowed to use the said lands if their uncles allowed it. The appellant and Ms. Mongi, her counsel, contended that the beneficiaries of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo only inherited usufructuary rights over the plots of land and thus could not sell the same. In that respect, they find the sale to the 7th to 11th respondents being unlawful. Foremost, the evidence on record discloses that the 7th respondent is the husband of the 5th respondent, but did not purchase any land from the heirs. This is evidence in exhibit D1 and Exhibit D10, which resemble. The 8th respondent made a point that he purchased land from one Eliabu Mbonea. The appellant did not establish whether this so called Eliabu Mbonea was the same Eliabu Mhina that purchased land from the 4th respondent and if so, whether at all the land he purchased was the same land Eliabu Mbonea bought from the 4th respondent. In the circumstances, it is clear that the two respondents were wrongly sued as contended by Ms. Werema. To this juncture, I will now address the main contention between the parties, that is, whether the beneficiaries of the late Godson Kintu Page 16 of 21 Kiondo had not inherited a good title to pass and thus rendering the sale to the 9th

to 11th respondents illegal. It is well settled that disposition of land in Tanzania involves; sale, mortgaging and leasing. There are requirements prior to effecting a transfer of land whether registered or unregistered. Where the transferor of such right is demised, there needs to be a document signifying a transmission from the deceased to the other party to whom it is transferred. The transmission of ownership from a deceased to another party is a process that actively requires the presence of executor(s) or administrator(s) of the estate depending on whether the deceased died testate or intestate, respectively. Such transfer can be made in two ways; first, by an administrator of the estate to another party. This process can only operate when there is a probate matter and the same is yet to be finalized. Second, by administrator of the estate to the beneficiary and then to the third party. This process is activated once the administrator distributes the estate among the beneficiaries whereby such beneficiary will use the documents signifying such transfer from the administrator to him or her as evidence of the transfer. The documents are the inventory of deceased’s estate and the statement of accounts. As for the primary court, from which this matter originated, these documents are Form No. V “the inventory form” (orodha ya mali) and Form No. VI “the statement of

accounts form” (hesabu za mirathi). Page 17 of 21 It follows therefore that disposition of land of the deceased by a beneficiary which is the case in this matter, would, among other necessary documents, depending on the circumstances, involve the two forms. Form No. V shows the list of assets of the deceased while Form No. VI shows the distribution of the assets among the beneficiaries. It is from the later, that one can evidently see the right/interest of the said beneficiary in the estate. Whatever right owned by the deceased shall upon bequeath, pass to the beneficiary in its entirety as within the confines of the law and whatever agreement concerned. If the deceased owned the asset whether fully or partly, the beneficiary will receive the rights to ownership in such quantity, no more no less. Form No. VI which provides the distribution of deceased property is a formal recognized document which issues the transfer of rights owned by the deceased to the beneficiary in its unfiltered state. Other relevant documents (if any) will define the extent of such rights. It is in line with such argument that I am confident that the beneficiaries of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo including the appellant received the rights of ownership over the suit land in their rawness, without any alterations or qualification. This makes it apparent that they received the title from their father, who

was undeniably the owner. In that respect, they could rightfully pass the same to whoever they wanted as they did to the 5th and 9th to 11th respondents. This automatically makes the sale legal. Page 18 of 21 With regard to the arguments as to the alleged existence of the oral Will and that it forbids the beneficiaries of the Late Godson Kintu Kiondo from selling the land they inherited, I am of the following observation that the trial Tribunal and the counsels for the respondents were correct in reasoning that this court and the trial Tribunal are without the jurisdiction to resolve probate matters when adjudicating land matters, especially, over a Will that was never even recognized by the probate court in its judgement. Further, the act to proceed with distribution of the estate and finally closure of the estate without any complaints from the beneficiaries meant that they all agreed with the distribution of the estate done by the administrators. I suppose, if they wanted to hold each other accountable to the alleged Will, the validity or otherwise of the same would have been an issue before the probate court and accordingly determined. Since the probate court never acknowledged or adjudicated on it, it becomes evident that the same was never an issue and the probate court never relied on it. It the terms of the purported oral Will were not adhered to by the administrators,

then the appellant should have challenged the filing of the inventory and statement of accounts. The fact that he did not do so, signifies that no oral Will, if any. was considered by the probate court to render the same bind the beneficiaries. It is with such argument that I express my disagreement with Ms. Mongi’s assertion that the trial Tribunal contradicted itself by stating that that it could not determine probate matters, but later referred Page 19 of 21 to documents from the probate court. I wish to note that, Exhibits D2 (also D4), D3 and D5 are all court issued documents signifying an actual process of administration of the estate of the late Godson Kintu Kiondo. These are formal documents issued by court with relevant jurisdiction and thus applicable for use by any other authority as evidence of compliance with necessary processes. The same were thus correctly tendered and relied upon by the trial Tribunal. Upon observing the judgement of the trial Tribunal, I am of the considered view that the trial chairman properly evaluated the evidence before it. As opposed to the requirement of Order XX R. 4 of the CPC, which is inapplicable in the Land Tribunal, the judgement of the trial Tribunal was duly composed in compliance of Regulation 20 (1) of the DLHT Regulations which states: 20.-(11) The judgement of the Tribunal shall always be short, written in simple language

and shall consist of: (a) a brief statement of facts; (b) Findings on the issues; (c) a decision; and (d) reasons for the decision. It is evident in the Tribunal decision that the requirements in the above quoted provision were adhered to. With due respect, Ms. Mongi’s argument is found to lack merit. Page 20 of 21 In the foregoing, I find the appeal without merits. It is hereby dismissed in entirety, with costs. Dated and delivered at Moshi on this 29th day of November 2023. X L. M. MONGELLA

JUDGE Signed by: L. M. MONGELLA Page 21 of 21