20170815 TZHC Mwanza
- Citation
- 20170815 TZHC Mwanza
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 15 August 2017
- Posture
- Land Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 15 August 2017
- Posture
- Land Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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. ChikuCOSMAS SOSTHENES BUFURA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SilasTESO SOSTHENES BUFURA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SilasMAYALA SOSTHENES BUFURA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SilasMUSSA SOSTHENES BUFURA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. SilasVARES SOSTHENES BUFURA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Silas03
Procedural history
Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal Chairman had powers to revise his own decision suo motu
- 02
Whether the review was properly exercised according to statutory requirements
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
TZHC
Judgment· 15 August 2017
: .; ~~ ·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
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.