juma hassan mayumba vs swalhina yusufu mfinanga administratrix of the late thabit hassan mayumba 2023 tzhc 15700 18 january 2023

'X. V THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA JUDICIARY IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DISTRICT REGISTRY OF MOROGORO) AT MOROGORO LAND APPEAL NO.75 OF 2022 (Arising from the Judgement ofthe District Land and Housing Tribunalfor Kiiombero/Mafinyi atlfakara in Land Application No. 18 of2020 by Hon. CP Kamugisha- Chairman) JUMA HASSAN MAYUMBA APPELANT VERSUS SWALHINA YUSUFU MFINANGA (Administratrix of the late Thabit Hassan Mayumba) RESPONDENT jgPGEMENT Hearing date on: 18/11/2022 Ruling date on: 31/01/2023 NGWEMBE,3; The appellant herein is challenging the judgement and decree of Kiiombero/Maiinyl District Land and Housing Tribunal at Ifakara, delivered on 25^*^ day of May, 2022 on Land Application No. 18 of 2020. The decision declared the late Thabit Hassan Mayumba as lawful owner of plot No. 294 Block "C" Nduna street, thus forming part of his estate. The Appellant being aggrieved he found his way to this house of justice by instituting seven (7) grounds of appeal as recapped hereunder: - 1. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law to declare that the suit premise being Plot No. 294 block "C" Nduna Is rightfully owned by the Respondent's deceased husband Thabit Hassani Mayumba, while the said plot is registered under the names of the late Hassani Mustafa Mayumba being the appellant's and respondent's father. 2. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law to declare that the Respondent Is the Administratrix of the deceased estate, while the pleadings are silent on her appointment and no evidence was tendered in support thereto. 3. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law to rely on weak and contradictory documentary evidence tendered by applicant purporting to be a sale agreement. 4. That, the Chairman erred in law by granting ownership of the disputed Plot No. 294 Block "C" Nduna to a caretaker Thabit Hassan Mayumba who is deceased. 5. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law and fact to disregard the fact that, the letter of offer in the names of the late Hassan Mustafa Mayumba dates back in the year 1981 approximately 13 years after the Respondent was allegedly given the suit premise through a sale agreement In 1968. 6. That, the trial tribunal erred in law in relying on the decision delivered by the primary court of Ifakara in Probate cause No. 35/2015, while the same had been quashed as set aside by a judgement delivered by the District Court of Kilombero at Ifakara in Probate Appeal No. 6/2015 delivered on 03/11/2015 by Hon. N.R. Bigirwa R.M 7. That, trial tribunal erred In taw and facts for its failure to critically analyze, evaluate and property asses the evidence testified by Appellant, thus came out with unfair decision. Brief recap to the genesis of this appeal, traces back to the relationship between Juma Hassan Mayumba and Thabit Hassan Mayumba (deceased). The two are brothers, sons of the late Hassan Mustafa Mayumba who was the original owner of the suit plot of land herein. The records reveal further that, in year 1968, Hassan Mustafa Mayumba via the document titled YA alleged to have sold the said plot of land to his son Thabit Hassan Mayumba. Further It is clear from the record that, the original owner Hassan Mayumba died on 9/8/1987, surviving two sons, namely Thabit Mayumba and Juma Mayumba. Since his demise his estate was never divided or administered according to the dictates of law. Sometimes in year 2014, one Juma Hassan Mayumba came up with an application for appointment as administrator of the deceased estate of Hassan Mayumba who died in year 1987. Following probate No. 13 of 2014 before Primary Court of Ifakara urban, he was appointed an administrator of the estate of Hassan Mayumba on 17/10/2014. Since his appointment in year 2014, he did not take any undertaking over the estate of the deceased Hassan Mayumba. However, the dispute over the suit plot of land arose in year 2020, between Thabit Hassan Mstafa Mayumba and Juma Hassan Mayumba. The source of dispute is related to ownership of the suit land. While the administrator claimed 3 the said plot of land as part of the deceased estate, Thabit Hassan Mstafa Mayumba claimed ownership of same from 1968. Due to that conflict in years 2020 the land dispute was instituted before the district land and Housing Tribunal for Kilombero registered as Land Application No. 18 of 2020. In such application, Thabiti Hassan sought declaratory Orders that he Is the lawful owner of the suit land. That the plot Is not subject to division of the deceased estate, permanent injunction and costs thereon. In the course of trial, but before conclusion of the dispute, unfortunate the applicant Thabit Hassan Mstafa Mayumba passed away on 27/5/2020, hence the process of an administrator of his estate whose appointment landed to the widow Swalhina Yusuph Mflnanga effective from 25^ August, 2020. Following appointment of an administratrix of the applicant's estate, the tribunal after hearing all parties, conclusively decided that the suit plot of land is a personal property of the applicant Thabiti Hassan Mstafa Mayumba. The conflict before the siblings surfaced in year 2014 after the appellant was appointed an administrator of the estate of Hassan Mustafa Mayumba. Upon determination of the suit, the District Tribunal decided in favour of the respondent and proceed to issue the following orders: - Plot No. 294 Plot "C" is a property of the late Thabit Hassan Mustafa Mayumba; the appellant or his agents or representatives or any person acting on his behalf were banned from the disputed land and the appellant was condemned to pay costs of the application. Being so aggrieved, preferred this appeal. In the cause of this appeal, both parties were represented by learned advocates, while the appellant had the legal services of Mr. Francis Wisdom and Patrick Peter Chale, the respondent had the legal services of learned advocate Akiza Rugemarila. Parties were ordered to file written submissions whose scheduling order both parties have complied, the court appreciates their inputs. In support of this appeal, the learned advocates for the appellant on the first ground of appeal, submitted that, the land in dispute Is registered as Plot No. 294 Block "C" Nduna Street and the owner appears as Hassan Mustafa who had letters of offer and the respondent tendered various receipts from year 1981 to 2018 showing payment of land rent, which were received by the owner. Even at page 6 the Honorable Chairman Is judgement reveals that, the first owner of the land in dispute is Hassan Mustafa Mayumba and he insisted that at this juncture the question is whether the transfer of right of occupancy was effected from Hassan Mustafa Mayumba to Thabit Hassan Mayumba. The answer was in negative. To comprehend his answer, the advocate cited section 2 of the Land Registration Act CAP 334 R.E 2019 which defines the owner in relation to any estate or interest, as the person for the time treing in whose name that estate or interest is registered, Mr. Wisdom also referred this court to the case of Jane Kimaro Vs. Vicky Adili (As Administratrix of the estate of the late Adili Daniei Mande), Ciyii Appeai No. 212 of 2016 at Page 13 where it was held that: - "In this sense we agree with Mr. Mushukuma that in the absence of the transfer of the titie having been affected the trial court erred in adjudging the respondent as die iawfui owner ofthe property" In reply Mr. Rugemarila submitted that, there is no dispute the house was disposed on year 1968 by Hassan Mustafa Mayumba to his son Thabit Hassan Mayumba as per exhibit P3, the appellant's arguments that the plot is registered in the name of Hassan Mustafa vide letter of offer which no longer exist since 1982 based on its validity of only one year from 1981 - 1982 are not tenable in law, hence the case of Jane Kimaro (Supra) which he referred and section 2 of CAP 334 R.E 2019 are Irrelevant and immaterial to this case. Proceeded to cite the case of Hemed Said Vs. Mohamed Mbilu (1984)T.L.R 113 (HC) to the effect that, parties to a suit cannot tie, but one whose evidence Is heavier than the other is the one who must win. Mr. Rugemarila added that the district land tribunal acted on high weight of evidence compared to weak evidence adduced by the appellant. Also referred this court to sections 110, 111 and 112 of Tanzania Evidence Act Cap 6 R.E 2019 and cases of Richard Elangwa Shaidi Vs. Praxeda Mtana, Land Case No. 338 of 2016(HC, Land Division at Par es salaam), Bareiia Karangirangi Vs. Asteria Nyalambwa [2019] ITLR. 142 (CA), and Abdul Karim Haji Vs. Raymond Nchimbi Alois and Joseph Sitta Joseph (2006) T.L.R 419. Mr, Rugemarila added, the appellant never produced any evidence as to whether those letters of offer were renewed or otherwise. On the second ground of appeal on appointment of the Respondent as Administratrix of the deceased estate, while pleadings are silent on her appointment. Admittedly advocate Wisdom referred this court to the proceedings of the tribunal dated 13"* October, 2020 at page 2, that the respondent's advocate Mr. Rugemarila successfully prayed to amend the application in order to implead the administratrix following demise of Thabit Hassan, but proceeded to contradict that fact by failure of the respondent to tender in court letters of administration of the late Thabit Hassan Mayumba, conferring powers to Swalhina Yusuf Mfinanga to administer the estate of her late husband. He supported his argument by rsforring this court to the case of Mwanaarafa Abubakar Basbeikh Mikidadi and Zuhura Abubakar Basheikh MikldadI (Administratrix of the estate of late Abubakar Basheikh Mikidadi) Vs. Kassim Kamtwanje and Hamis Basheikh Mikidadi, Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2020 where it was held; - "Settted Is the rule that an annexure to a plaint or written statement of defence Is not evidence that can be relied upon. It becomes evidence once It Is subsequently tendered or admitted In evidence" Mr. wisdom further submitted that appellant's advocate during trial raised a preliminary objection that Swalhina did not have the locus to prosecute the case, however the tribunal did not entertain, hear and decide on the objection. He cited the case of R.S.A Limited Vs. Hanspaul Automechs Limited and Govinderajan Sethil Kumal, [2020]I T.L.R 589 In contrast Mr. Rugemarila replied that, the appellant is trying to mislead the court that the proceedings are silent on the appointment of the Respondent as the administratrix of the estate of Thabit Hasan Mayumba, while the records are clear at page 2 of the proceedings and page 3 of the judgement. The cited cases in support are irrelevant and Immaterial to this appeal, since the letter for appointment was tendered before the trial tribunal and it is within the tribunal's records. As to whether the respondent was never appointed as administratrix this court iacks jurisdiction as it was upon the appeliant to question the same in the reievant court. On the third ground, Mr. Wisdom submitted that, the sale agreement between Hassan Mustafa Mayumba and Thabit Hassan Mayumba In year 1968 (Exhibit P3) neither has any consideration nor is within exceptions required by section 10 of the Law of Contract Act CAP 345 R.E 2019 and that the effect of lacking consideration is to render the agreement void according to section 25 (1) of the Act. The contents of exhibit P3 was clear that, Thabit Hasan Mayumba was not allowed to sale or pass the same through inheritance. Thus, proves that Hassan Mustafa Mayumba had no intention to sale the same to Thabit Hassan Mayumba. In turn, advocate Rugemarila responded that, the ground is flimsy because the appellant cannot question the validity of exhibit P3. There are no any legal bases of the allegation over the exhibit, since if it could be true that no consideration effectuated by then, the sale agreement couldn't have existed since 1968 up to 1988 when the alleged Hassan Mayumba died (20 years later). Without the presence of late Hassan! Mustafa Mayumba or his son, no one can question whether there was no payment taking into consideration it was an agreement between father and son. The testimony of SMI and SM2 (biological mother of the appellant and biological mother of late Thabit Hassan Mayumba) left the trial tribunal without any flicker of doubt, that respondent's deceased husband developed the house and rented it from 1981 up to 1988 when his father died, On the fourth ground was strongly argued by the appellant's advocate by agreeing that, Thabit Hassan Mayumba developed the suit house, rented it and received rental fees, but that alone did not make him a rightful owner of same, but was a mere caretaker. Added that long occupation of a house does not deprive the owner, the right of his ownership of the right to property as it was held in the case of Shaha Salehe Mwinyihija Vs. Stamili Salehe, Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2008. Replying therein, Mr. Rugemarila submitted quite eloquently that, the appellant Is trying to mislead the court, that the respondent's husband was appointed a caretaker over the house in dispute. Exhibit P3 does not mention Thabit Mustafa Mayumba as a caretaker and there is no any evidence to that effect. Rightly he added that, parties are bound by their pleadings, the question of caretaker has never been raised by the appellant, thus It is new evidence that cannot be entertained by this court. Supported his argument by referring this court to the case of Shaha Salehe Mwinyihija (Supra) as irrelevant and Immaterial. The evidence of SM2 Hadija Said Nyanga who is the biological mother of the appellant and respondent's husband left no doubt that the suit land was disposed by his husband to his son (Thabit Hassan Mayumba) in 1968 who developed the suit house and has been in possession for over fifty (50) years now. Arguing on the fifth ground of appeal. In respect to the offer being in the name of the late Hassan Mustafa Mayumba dates back in the year 1981 approximately 13 years after the Respondent was allegedly given the suit premise through a sale agreement in 1968. Mr. wisdom posed a question of if it is true that Hassan Mustafa sold the suit land to Thabit w i Hassan Mustafa through sale agreement In 1968, why would he apply and consequently obtain a letter of offer In his name as the owner after thirteen (13) years from the date of sale? As such he sought assistance on this ground from the case of Amina Maulid Ambali and two Others Vs. Ramadhani Juma, Civil appeal No. 35 of 2019. Replying briefly therein, Advocate Rugemarlla responded that, the allegedly letter of offer was valid only one year that Is up to 1982, since then the date of dispute the suit land had no any title. It was upon the appellant to bring evidence to prove otherwise. The dispute arose on 2014 when the appellant petitioned for letters of administration after 26 years from the death of their father. The appellant had III motive when he sought and obtained letters of administration for his late father. Peace and tranqulllty existed for more than 50 years In the family only to be obstructed by the appellant soon after obtaining letters of administration. The appellant ought to have brought evidence what caused them not to demand same Immediate after death of their father In year 1988. Insisted that the referred case of Amina Maulid Ambali and two Others(Supra) was Inapplicable. On the sixth ground of appeal relating to the reliance on the decision of primary court of Ifakara In Probate cause No. 35/2015, which same was set aside by the District Court of Kllombero at Ifakara in Probate Appeai No. 6/2015 deilvered on 03/11/2015. Advocate Wisdom submitted that. It was wrong to rely on proceedings and decision which was nullified by the superior court. Contending to this ground Mr. Rugemarlla replied that, the facts speak for themself, the trial tribunal never gave weight In the alleged probate case in making Its decision, rather the tribunal's decision was 10 configured in the veracity of the weight evidence adduced by the parties. Worse still the appellant failed to show even a single wording In the alleged probate case used to Influence tribunal's judgement. Mr. Rugemarila concluded that the whole appeal Is baseless, untenable and unmerltorious. In brief rejoinder Mr. Wisdom reiterated to his submission In chief and added that, the respondent purports to mislead the court by making It believe that he owned the suit property for the period of 50 years, while the real owner is Hassan Mayumba. Further argued that the said property never transferred from the original owner to the Respondent. In this appeal, certain facts are Indisputable including; first the original owner of the suit land was Hassan Mayumba; second Hassan Maymba and the original disputants (Juma Hassan Mayumba and Thabit Hassan Mayumba) are sons of Hassan Mayumba; third Hassan Mayumba demised on year 1988, Since then to year 2014, none of the heirs of the deceased estate ever petitioned for administration of his estate; fourth, the respondent In the cause of hearing of the petition, before the tribunal, he likewise died, hence the administratrix, who is the wife of the deceased Thabit Hassan Mayumba. Fifth, the wife of Hassan Mayumba who is a biological mother of the disputants Juma Hassan Mayumba and Thabit Hassan Mayumba Is still alive and she boldly testified during trial t)efore the tribunal. Taking Into consideration those undlsputable facts, I find certain grounds of appeal are answered. For Instance, the first ground of appeal portrays undlsputable facts, that HassanI Mustafa Mayumba who Is the biological father of the disputants owned the Plot No. 294 Block "C" and that in 1981, he applied for letters of offer. Also, It Is not In contention u • — that there are land rent receipts up to 2018 displaying the name of Hassani Mustafa Mayumba. Appellant herein raised a question as to whether the transfer of the right of occupancy was effectively actualized from Hassan Mustafa Mayumba to Thabit Hassan Mayumba? He suggested an answer, that no transfer was done. He cited section 2 of the Land registration Act Cap 334 R.E 2019 which defines who is the owner of land. In reply respondent stated that, there is no dispute that the disputed house was sold by Hassan Mustafa Mayumba way back in year 1968 to his son Thabit Hassan Mayumba as per exhibit P3. To supplement the sale agreement, the disputants' biological mother Hadija Said Nyanga who testified as PW2 and by virtue of law was also the true heir of the late husband's estate, firmly and decisively testified that, the disputed plot of land was given to his son Thabit Hassan Mayumba by his late father. Such evidence stood unchallenged despite the fact that the appellant based strongly his argument on validity of both documentary evidence of sale agreement as against the alleged offer issued in year 1981, Legally, documentary evidence must stand or fall, in respect to this ground, the contents of sale agreement done in the year 1968 remained valid ail along the whole of the original owner Hassan Mayumba. Equally important is the fact that even after demise of the original owner Hassan Mayumba, the said plot of land had no dispute between the heirs until when the appellant successfully petitioned for letters of t administration of the deceased estate in year 2014. It means and rightly ' so, after the demise of Hassan Mayumba, the family and estate of the deceased remained peacefully for the period of more than 26 years. 12 It is a common knowledge that In civil proceedings, the party with legal burden also bears the evidential burden and the standard In each case Is on a balance of probabilities. The Court of Appeal In Godfrey Sayi Vs. Anna Siame as legal representative of the late Mary Mndolwa, Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012 (unreported) and In Anthony M. Masanga Vs Penina (Mama Ngesi) and another, Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2014 (unreported) they cited with approval the case of Re B [2008] UKHL 35, where Lord Hoffman defined the term 'balance of probabilities' by the following wording: "Ifa legal rule requires a fact to be proved(a fact In Issue), a judge orjury must decide whether or not It happened. There Is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates In a binary system In which the only values are 0 and 1. The fact either happened or it did not. Ifthe tribunal Is left In doubt, the doubt is resoived by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears the burden of proof faiis to discharge it, a value of0 is returned and the fact is treated as not having happened. If he does discharge It, a value of1 is returned to and the fact is treated as having happened" Always parties should remember that the Court decide disputes according to the available evidences, applicable laws and the prevailing circumstances. Applying this settled principle of law, the appellant alleges that the house In dispute Is registered under the names of Hassan Mustafa Mayumba and relied on letter of offer of 1981 and receipts of land rent to prove that Hassan Mustafa Mayumba Is the owner, but he did not furnish any proof as who Is the owner recently or 13 on whose name the house is registered, in another side respondent tendered exhibit P3 titled 'HATI YA KUUZA NYUMBA" an agreement which stand until year 1988 where Hassan Mustafa Mayumba died, together with the evidence of PW3 was strong enough to convince the trial tribunal that the disputed plot rightfully owned by Respondent's deceased husband. As rightly held in the cited case of Hemed Said (Supra) parties to suit cannot tie, but the person whose evidence is heavier than that of the other is the one who must win, in this case I agree with trial tribunal that respondent evidence was heavier than that of the appellant. Hence this ground lacks merit. On the second ground of appeal, I have taken time to peruse on the proceedings of the trial tribunal, it is evident that on 13''' October, 2022 before the trial tribunal the respondent's advocate prayed to amend the application in order to implead the administrator following the death of the applicant Mr. Thabit Hassan Mayumba, the respondent appeared in person and he replied to the prayer that "/ have no objection" according to the records, letters of administration was never tendered, admitted nor served to the appellant herein, but the question Is whether the omission prejudiced the respondent herein? The answer is no because the appellant was made aware of the amendment, which Intended to replace the deceased Thabit Mustafa Mayumba with his widow. Even during cross examination Swalhina Yusuf Mfinanga mentioned that, she Is the administratrix of the estate of the late Thabit Hassan Mayumba. Also it is apparent that, the appellant's advocate before the trial tribunal raised a preliminary objection that Swalhina Yusuph Mfinanga did not have the locus stand!as she did not have the requisite appointment letters, but the chairman did not entertain the 14 objection instead he said that, the records clearly show that Swalhina Yusuph Mfinanga presented those letters, looking thoroughly this procedural omissions by the chairman, does not prejudice neither parties, bearing in mind that the District Land Tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of procedures. As conclusion In this point, parties should always be mindful that this appeal Involve relatives that is, brothers from the same father. So as relatives, the appellant is well aware that his brother Thabiti Hassan Mayumba died and the wife of the deceased Is Swalhina Yusuph Mfinanga. Such knowledge alone suffices to make the appellant well aware on the demise of his brother and appointment of his sister-in-law as an administratrix of his brother's estate. The third ground of appeal, is answered In the first ground of appeal. When compared the evidence of the respondent and that of the appellant before the tribunal, obvious the evidence of the respondent was heavier than that of the appellant. Exhibit P3 proved that Hassan Mustafa Mayumba sold the disputed house to his son who is also deceased Thabit Hassan Mayumba. The sale was In writing way back to year 1968. Such evidence which was reduced In writing, must stand alone without any assistance from oral testimonies. Sarkar on Evidence Fifteenth Edition at page 1269,discussed as follows; - "/if" Is a cardinal rule ofevidence, not one of technicality, but of substance, which It Is dangerous to depart from, that where written documents exist, they shall be produced as being the best evidence of their own contents. Whenever written Instruments are appointed, either by the requirement oflaw, or by the contract of the parties, to be the repositories and 15 memorials of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used, either as substitute for such instrument, or to contradict or alter them''. First the tittle Itself "/y>477 YA MAUZIANO' suggest the intention of Hassan Mustafa Mayumba to sell his house to his son Thabit Hassan Mustafa, the conditions therein cannot nullify the intention of neither party in the contract, it is true that any contract to be valid must have consideration, Hassan Mustafa Mayumba stated that as quoted hereunder: - Hakununua kwa pesa iia nimempa kwa hiyari yangu kama uritiii au mwanangu. The phrase above can be translated to mean, ...he did not buy with money, but I have given him with my free will as inheritance or as my son... It is known that one cannot give inheritance while still alive, but he added or as my son, which means giving the relationship as father and son the consideration was on account of love and affection. Thus, concluding this ground in negative. Likewise, the fourth ground is also answered with the first ground, that Thabit Hassan Mayumba was never a caretaker (Exhibit P3) and the evidence of PW2 clearly proves that plot No. 294 Block "C" Nduna was his property and he has been enjoying the ownership for over 50 years, developing it and paying land rent to respective authorities. It is unhealthy legally to question a written document of year 1968 and the authors have already died. Prudently the survivors should take the written document as it is and authentic of their intention. 16 Rightly so, as submitted by the respondent, this is new evidence that cannot be entertained by this court because it was never raised by the appellant before trial tribunal. On the fifth ground that, the tribunal erred in law and fact to disregard the fact that the letter of offer in the names of the late Hassan Mustafa Mayumba dates back in year 1981 approximately 13 years after the Respondent was allegedly given the suit premise through a sale agreement in 1968. This is simple and should not tie me up for obvious reasons, it is undisputable fact that Hassan Mustafa Mayumba applied for letter of offer in year 1981. But such application for letters of offer to my considered opinion did not vitiate and or invalidate his intention expressed in Exhibit P3. Above all, the letter of offer was valid only for one year, that is, from year 1981 to 1982. Moreover, this point also Is defeated by the evidence of PW2 who is the true wife of the deceased Hassan Mayumba and biological mother of the disputants. To conclude this ground of appeal, it is evident that there was no transfer of ownership from the original owner to the purchaser to date. But that alone does not invalidate the sale agreement effected during the life time of Hassan and Thabiti. I found no relevance on the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant only raised allegations that, the trial court erred in law In relying on the declaration delivered by the primary court of Ifakara In Probate cause No. 35/2015, while same had been quashed and set aside by the judgement delivered by the District Court of Kilombero at Ifakara In Probate Appeal No. 6/2015. Unfortunate he did not explain how that Probate cause No. 35/2015 influenced the decision of the trial tribunal; 17 hence I have nothing to determine as far as this ground is concerned. Same as other grounds this also must fail. The last ground related to failure of the trial tribunal to critically analyse, evaluate and properly asses the evidence testified by the appellant, thus came out with unfair decision. The contents of this ground when compared with the contents of the judgement of the trial tribunal, It is the contrary. The tribunal together with wise assessors after full analyses of the whole evidences, arrived Into a unilateral conclusion that the suit land is owned by the family of the late Thabit Mayumba. Such conclusion was arrived after thorough analysis of adduced evidences including the evidence of the appellant's biological mother (PW2). In totality and for the reasons so stated, there is no reason or justifiable cause to disturb the judgement of the trial tribunal, the only justice to be done In this appeal is to dismiss it entirely as I do it with costs payable to the respondent. Order accordingly. Pated at Morogoro in Chambers this 31^ day of January, 2023. oO_^ 0>? c -1. o P. J. NGWEMBE -3: UJ X w JUDGE > v- 31/1/2023 18 Court: Judgment delivered at Morogoro in Chambers on this 31^ day of January, 2023, Before Hon. A,W. Mmbando, DR in the presence of Mr. Patrick Peter Chale, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Akiza Rugemarila for the Respondent. Right to appeal to the Court of Appeal explained. Sgd: Hon. A.w. Mmbandocertifythat thisj^rpirue and correct DEPUTY REGISTRAR 31/1/2023 Deputy Registrar Date Morogoro 19