Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

20170815 TZHC Mwanza

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Tribunal Chairman acted ultra vires by exercising revisionary and review powers over his own decision without statutory authority or proper application, rendering the decision a nullity.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The decision and orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application Review No. 93 of 2012 dated 16th October, 2015 are quashed and set aside.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

KIEMO MRISHO

Appellant Counsel: Ms. Chiku

COSMAS SOSTHENES BUFURA

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Silas

TESO SOSTHENES BUFURA

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Silas

MAYALA SOSTHENES BUFURA

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Silas

MUSSA SOSTHENES BUFURA

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Silas

VARES SOSTHENES BUFURA

Respondent Counsel: Mr. Silas

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Land Appeal / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Chairman acted ultra vires by revising his own decision suo motu, which is not permitted by statute. The review was not properly filed and was out of time.
Respondent
Initially resisted but ultimately conceded that the Chairman wrongly exercised revisionary and review powers without being moved as required by law.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Ms. Yonne Virgnia Ruth Chopra Vs. Ms. Lake Duluti Estate Ltd [2016] TLS LR 86

    Powers of revision are only available to a superior court over an inferior tribunal, not for a tribunal to revise its own decision.

  2. 02

    Order XLII rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 33 R.E. 2002

    Review must be by application and not suo motu by the tribunal.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Tribunal Chairman acted ultra vires by exercising revisionary and review powers over his own decision without statutory authority or proper application, rendering the decision a nullity.

Court disposition

appeal allowed

  • The decision and orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application Review No. 93 of 2012 dated 16th October, 2015 are quashed and set aside.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 15 August 2017

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 15 August 2017

20170815 TZHC Mwanza

: .; ~~ ·r ~ . ~ '.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY

AT MWANZA LAND APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2015 (From the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Mwanza at Mwanza in Land Case No. 93 of 2012 District Land and Housing Tribunal Mwanza) l' KI EMO MRISHO ............................................... APPELLANT

VERSUS 1. COSMAS SOSTHENES BUFURA 2. TESO SOSTHENES BUFURA 3. MAYALA SOSTHENES BUFURA I •••••••••• RESPONDENTS .

4. MUSSA SOSTHENES BUFURA 5. VARES SOSTHENES BUFURA

JUDGMENT MAKARAMBA, J:. The Appellant has approached this Court on appeal, contesting the decision of the Mwanza District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application No. 93 of· 2012. The Appellant has lodged three grounds of appeal. However, when the appeal came for hearing; Ms. Chiku, learned Counsel for the Appellant elected to abandon the 2nd ground of appeal, and submitted only on the 1st and 3rd grounds of appeal. On the 3rd ground of appeal, Ms. Chiku referred this Court to Section 36 of Part B of the Land Disputes Courts Act; which provides for the 1 powers of the District Land and Housing Tribunal, which include powers of revision by calling the record of Ward Tribunal and revise. In the instant appeal, the Chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal, Hon. Silas ·called for his own record and revised it suo motu. This according to Ms. Chiku was highly un-procedural and thus renders the whole decision a i' nullity and ought to be quashed and set aside. Ms. Chiku cited to this J ·1 i Court a decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania; Ms. Yonne Virgnia 1 ·j Ruth Chopra Vs. Ms. Lake Duluti Estate Ltd [2016] TLS LR 86 at p. 90 where the Court emphasized that powers of revision are not meant to be an alternative to an appeal. I wish to emphasize here that much as the stated principle is correct, but it has been quoted out of context. The gist of the matter here is that

the Tribunal exercised revisionary powers over its own decision, which is inimical to the settled principle that, powers of revision are only available to a superior Court over inferior Tribunal. In the instant appeal, the Chairman of the Tribunal having exercised powers not conferred upon him by any statute, acted ultra vires, which will make his decision a nullity and thus to be quashed. Mr. Silas, learned Counsel for the Respondents conceded to the 3rd ground of appeal. For the above reason, the 3rd ground of appeal has merit and it is allowed. On the 1st ground of appeal, Ms. Chiku argued that even if the Chairman had powers of revising,· which according to her he did not have, the Chairman proceeded to declare that the application for review, which was non-existent, had been filed out of time. This Court upon prompting the learned Counsel whether the Chairman of the Tribunal has powers of review,· and having visited the 2 provisions of Order XLII rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 33 ~ R.E. 2002, on the grounds for review, it appeared that such grounds were not stated in the Judgment of the Tribunal; and worse still review is only by application; and there is no recourse for review suo motu, the way the Chairman proceeded. Mr. Silas after resisting for a while _and arguing that the Chairman properly exercised his powers of review, decided to abandon that line of

argument and conceded that the Chairman even if he had such powers, he had wrongly exercised them by assuming such powers suo motuwithout being moved as per the law required. It _would seem that there is a consensus among the learned Counsel for the parties that the whole appeal has merits and should be allowed and the parties to be left at liberty to pursue the proper course of action in settling their dispute. It is for the above reasons that the appeal is allowed in its entirety. The decision and orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in Application Review No. 93 of 2012 dated 16th October, 2015 originating from the Mwanza Land and Housing Tribunal in Application No. 93/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. Each party shall bear its own costs for 15/08/2017 3

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Ms. Yonne Virgnia Ruth Chopra Vs. Ms. Lake Duluti Estate Ltd [2016] TLS LR 86

Case cited

Land Disputes Courts Act Section 36

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Civil Procedure Act Cap. 33 R.E. 2002 Order XLII rule 1

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.