20181231 TZHC Dodoma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY)

AT DODOMA MISC. LAND APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2018 (Arising from the decision of Misc. Land Application No. 80 of 2017 of District Land and HousingTribunal for Singida at Singida originated from Land Case No. 25 of 2016 of Mtunduru Ward Tribunal) J UIV1A ABDALA ........... ... ....... .. .. ........ ......... •....... ...APPELLANr

VERSUS HAMISI A. IIUISIA .................................................. RESPONDENr 211012018 & 3111212018

JUDGMENT MASAJU, J. The appellant, Juma Abdallah, aggrieved by the decision of Singida District Land and Housing Tribunal has come to the Court by way of an appeal against the Respondent Hamis A. Muna. When the appeal was heard in the court on the 2d day of October, 2018 the Appellant appeared in person and duly adopted his one ground of appeal to form his submissions in support of the appeal in the Court. The said ground of appeal as it is in the Petition of Appeal reads, thus: 1 ft P4 1. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law and fact 1 to receive an Application for Execution from Mtunduru Ward Tribunal and instead of Executing what has been determined and decided by trial Tribunal as prayed by the Appellant herein, it started to determine the matter afresh, varied such decision and delivered the Ruling which contravened the decision of the trial Tribunal while denying the Appellant's rights' The Appellant prayed the Court to quash the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Singida at Singida with cots for injustice. The Respondent, who was represented by Mr. Erick Christopher, the learned Counsel, contested the appeal that it lackS merit for the following reasons; thus: That, it was not true that the chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal did hear the case afresh. But what he did is that he heard the application for execution of

the Decree in the course of which he heard the preliminary points of law raised by the Respondent. The Chairman also granted the prayer for execution of the Decree. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal is the one that has been mandated by the law to enforce the order given by the Ward Tribunals. That was according to section 16(3) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, [Cap. 216] and the procedure thereof is provided for under Regulation 23 of the Land Disputes Courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunals) Regulation, 2003. That, the procedure includes notice to the judgment debtor etc. and the execution order. That, the said procedure was duly followed by the 2 Fhairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal who worked on the objection by the Respondent accordingly. That, the Chairman did not error in law and fact as he discharged his powers according to section 16(3) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, [Cap. 216] and Regulation 23 of the Land Disputes courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunal) ReguIatios, 2003. That, the appeal lacked merit and should therefore be dismised with costs. In rejoinder, the Appellant submitted that the Chairman dea't with the land that was not subject to dispute between the parties. He, once more, prayed the Court to allow the appeal with costs. The record of the trial Tribunal is clear that the land, the subject of the application of

execution by the Appellant before the Chairman for the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Singida had been sold to the Respondent by one Ramadhan Hongoa and that part of the said land subsequently sold to the Appellant. That, the said land has been subeck Civil action in the Mitunduru Ward Tribunal where it was decided t% -i parties were obliged to occupy and use their respective lands trespassing to each other's land. That, the Appellant once , trespassed into the Respondent's land, he was prosecuted ac ç \ the offence by Utemini Primary Court at Singida in Crimina CtcJ Of 2017. That the Respondent had also won Appeal AppRc rl 6 2011 in the said District Land Housing Tribunal against Of So, when the District Land and Housing Tribun\ the Ruling for the application for execution fl he A the 3 >d-emarcation/boundaries of the land subject to the execution, was statin the obvious land boundaries according to the sale agreement between the Respondent and Ramadhan Hongoa and in accordance with the Mituduru Ward Tribunal decision that obligated the parties to maintain and remain in the land that were in their boundaries. That being the case, as so rightly submitted by the Respondent, the Chairman did not hear the case afresh but enforced what had been decided by the trial Tribunal pursuant to section 16(3) of the Land Dispufes courts Act, [Cap. 216] and Regulation 23 of the Land

Disputes Courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, 2003 accordingly. The land boundaries as stated by the Chairman, was also in accordance with the Tribunal 's decision in Appeal Application No.71 of 2011 by the Respondent against the Ramadhani Hongoa who sold the land to him and the execution order thereof by the very Tribunal dated the 28th day of November, 2012. The Appellant couldn't therefore have successfully claimed the ownership of the land that had been adjudged by the very District Land Housing Tribunal that belonged to the Respondent, the essence of the Chairman stating the boundaries for purposes of clarity only. The appeal was misconceived and it is hereby dismissed in its entirety for want of merit. The District Land and Housing Tribunal for Singida Ruling on the Application for execution by the Appellant that was granted to the extent stated by the Tribunal is hereby upheld according1y. The parties shall bear their own costs 4) I 0 /-

GEORGE MASAJU

JUDGE 1 31/12/2018 5