LUBASHA GOYAYI MAGILIGINGA NEW

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

SHINYANGA SUB REGISTRY

AT SHINYANGA LAND APPEAL NO. 23446 OF 2024 (Arising from Land Application No. 03 of 2022 at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kishapu at Kishapu) LUBASHA GOYAYI MAGILIGINGA ….……………….. APPELLANT

VERSUS JOHN GOYAYI MAGILIGINGA……………………..1ST RESPONDENT (The administrator of the estate of the late Goyayi Magiliginga) PETER PAUL MABUSHI………………………………2ND RESPONDENT MWANDU TUNGU MAKALE…………………………3RD RESPONDENT MAHONA BUNDALA MASANJA……………….…...4TH RESPONDENT NGUSA MAJA MASELE……………………………….5TH RESPONDENT SEBASTIAN RICHARD……………………….………6TH RESPONDENT MAGENI GAPI NELEKWA…………………………...7TH RESPONDENT RAPHAEL MGAYA MAYALA…………………..….….8TH RESPONDENT MAHONA MBONYA MSHANDETE………………….9TH RESPONDENT GUMBUYI RUBASHA GOYAYI……………………10TH RESPONDENT MSABILA MABUSHI SHIMBI……………………..11TH RESPONDENT MWALI BUNDALA MASANJA…………………..…12TH RESPONDENT CHARLES LUKASI MAGILIGINGA……………….13TH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT 16th October & 8th November, 2024 MASSAM, J: - The appellant and 1st respondent were respondents, and 2nd respondent to 13th respondent were applicants at Kishapu District Land and Housing Tribunal, where they filed application claiming ownership of the disputed land which they bought from 1st respondent while the appellant restricted them to use the same because it had a dispute. The decision was delivered on 1/8/2024 and they won the case and declared 1 to be the owner of the disputed land after bought it from 1st respondent (John Goyahi Magiliginga) as administrator of Goyahi Magiliginga. The appellant being aggrieved with the said decision appealed to this court based on the following grounds: 1. That, the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in proceeding to hear and determine the land dispute was still going on in probate cause at Itilima primary court.

2. That, the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in declaring the 1st respondent as the lawful appointed administrator of the estate of the late GOYAYI MAGILIGINGA while his appointment is fully of irregularities leading to his revocation.

3. That, the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in declaring the 2nd to the 13th respondent as the lawful purchaser of the suit land from the 1st respondent while he had no legal authority to sell the suit as he did. The appeal was urged orally and during the hearing of the same. The appellant was represented by Mr. Sululu, learned counsel whilst Ms. Elizabeth Luhigo, learned counsel represented the respondents. 2 In regard to the first ground of appeal that, the trial chairman erred to determine this application while there was pending case of Probate at Itilima Primary Court. Mr. Sululu argued that appellant challenged the appointment of 1st respondent through Probate Case No 3/2019 at Itilima which was delivered on 6.5.2024 and the said Probate case was filed before the filing of the said land case at tribunal and they prayed to the tribunal to stay this case pending the hearing and determination of the said probate case, however the matter proceeded and the decision was delivered that 1st respondent was right to sell the said land to 2nd respondent to 13th respondents. Moreover, after the probate case has been determined the 1st respondent was revoked to be administrator of the estate of his father and hence the trial tribunal erred to proceed to hear and determine the said case as there was a pending Probate case at Itilima Primary Court. Responding to the 2nd

ground of appeal, that trial tribunal erred to held that the 1st respondent was legally appointed thus why he sold that land. Mr. Sululu argued that they challenged his appointment by file an application for revocation. He added that by the time when he sold that land he was already distributed the said land twice on 7/3/2022 and 17/3/2022. 3 Apparently, Mr. Sululu submitted that land was sold on 14- 17/3/2022 when the same was not yet distributed to the heirs as he was appointed on 23/9/2019. He argued further that the said distribution was done after elapse of almost three years, as he distributed it on 2022 while he was appointed on 2019. Additionally, Mr. Sululu argued that 1st respondent was directed to close the probate case within six months since his appointment but he did not comply with the said order. Mr. Sululu argued that failure to do so seized him to be administrator of the deceased estate of his late father. He referred section 107 (1) (2) of the Probate Administration of the Estate Act Cap 352 R:E 2019 gives power to the administrator to seek for leave of extension of time when his/her time elapse after been appointed. He also referred the decision of in the matter of the estate of the late Joaquim Francisco Santana Antonio Fernandes and in the matter of application of extension of time to file inventory by Joanna Adella Menezes Misc Probate and Administration

Cause No 8/2022 H.C Tanga where it was insisted that when time given by the court elapse the appointed person required to seek for extension of time. More on that, Mr. Sululu said that even if 1st respondent was administrator of the estate of his father he was not required to sell the 4 said properties as his duty was not to sell it but to distribute the same to the heirs of the late Goyayi Magiliginga. Mr. Sululu, added that all documents which was brought to the tribunal show that John Goyahi Magiliginga sold that land by his own capacity and not as administrator of the estate of the late Goyahi Magiliginga. Concerning the third ground of appeal, that tribunal was erred to held that the said buyers were legally bought that that land to 1st respondent. Mr. Sululu argued that 1st respondent had no any power to sell the said land as he was no longer administrator of the said estate by the time of selling it, and he sold it by his personal capacity while his duty was only to distribute it to the heirs and not to sell it. Additionally, Mr. Sululu argued that the tribunal required to order that 2nd respondent to 13th respondent to be returned their money by 1st respondent pending the settlement of dispute of probate issues between appellant and 1st respondent which is still pending before Itilima District Court. Finally, he prayed this appeal to be allowed, and decision of

trial tribunal to be nullified and orders given to be set aside and if this court 5 feel just can order the buyers of the said land to be returned their money and maintain status in quo pending the probate case at Itilima Primary Court. On the other side Ms. Luhigo submitted on 1st and 2nd ground jointly that the trial tribunal was correct to determine the land case before him because there was a pending appeal at High Court between Thobias Lubasha and John Goyahi which was withdrawn and marked settled. Notably, after that order Chairman of tribunal continued to hear the said case before him, and after that decision appellant went to the primary court and file application for revocation of John Goyahi Magiliginga to be administrator of the said estate. Additionally, Ms. Luhigo submitted that John Goyayi was appointed as the administrator of the estate of his father on 28th October, 2019 and that was a reasons why chairman proceed with the case and even the said appeal no 51/2022 talks nothing about the appointment and revocation of the 1st respondent as administrator of the estate of the late Goyahi Magiliginga. Again, Ms. Luhigo responded that the 1st respondent delayed to distribute the estate of the late father from 2019 to 2022 because Lubasha 6 Goyahi and his son Thobias Lubasha who were not cooperative in that exercise they were not attending to the meeting and at last

Lubasha refused to distribute the said land and informing them that the said land belonged to him alone. Apparently, Ms. Luhigo submitted that administrator failed to distribute the said land until when the District commissioner interfered. They agreed that because Lubasha was taking care the said land for long time to be given a big portion of land than others, but Lubasha did not attend to that day of distribution however he was given 28 acres, Goyani Goyahi was given 18 acres, Nhwayo Goyahi was given 18 acres, the family of Magiliginga who was a niece of Goyahi was given 21 acres according to the directives given before by the late Goyahi Magiliginga. Moreover, after that distribution some of the family members decided to sell their plots but some members were around so they asked John as administrator to sell their plots in their behalf and after that sell administrator went to close the said probate at Itilima but he was stopped to do so. Again, on the issue that administrator was not appointed by the family members that was not true as the administrator was appointed 7 by family member and was voted by 33 people, and he filed the said probate case No. 3/2019 at Itilima, and appointed on 28/10/2019 according to that his appointment was proper and legal. Finally, the issue that chairman erred to held 1st respondent as administrator of the estate that is not true, as it was

not the duty of chairman to appoint the administrator as the same was done by the Itilima Primary Court Magistrate. Coming to the 3rd ground of appeal, that the trial chairman erred to held respondents no 2 to 13 as the bonafide purchaser according to the evidence which was given by respondents concerning the legality of the said sale and its documents. Ms. Luhigo argued that said evidence was not objected by the appellant, hence he agreed the said sale agreement. Ms. Luhigo, submitted that by the time sell was conducted the distribution was already done and the application for revocation of the administrator was filed when the administrator had already discharged his duty as administrator of the estate. Additionally, Ms. Luhigo said that on the issue that trial tribunal required to order John to return back the money pending the 8 determination of pending probate case at Itilima, it could not happen as John Goyahi sold the same on behalf of the people who aware not around and asked him to sell it on his behalf and not himself. Ms Luhigo cemented her argument by referring the case of Said Mpambije and another vs Nyamande Swetu Fundikira and 3 Others, Civil Appeal No 430/2022 CAT Tabora which held that when revocation conducted when administrator is already discharge his duties cannot ordered to pay the said costs, and the said revocation cannot invalidate the said

sale agreement. Apparently, Ms. Luhigo said that the sale agreement done by administrator on behalf of the heirs who were not around was legal. This court requires to know that after the decision of land appeal no 51/2023 to be determined the appellant advocate did not show up to the tribunal to proceed with the case. Finally, Ms. Luhigo prayed this court to dismiss this appeal with costs and decision of Kishapu District tribunal to remain undisturbed, and the said respondents to be allowed to enjoy their land without any interference. 9 In way of rejoinder Mr. Sululu added on 1st ground of appeal that there is nowhere the tribunal stayed this matter pending the appeal which was before this court. Also parties who had a case before this court was Thobias Lubasha and John Goyayi as the parties were different so the tribunal could not have a right to stay the said case. Also, Mr. Sululu said that, 1st respondent was revoked on 6.5.2024, when the decision was delivered, this case was still pending to the tribunal, and the chairman was given the said copy of decision but he opted to proceed with the hearing and determine the same. Apparently, on the second ground. Mr. Sululu submitted that when respondent was selling that land he was no longer an administrator as he did it after expiration of six months given by the court. Also, advocate for respondents in her submission she agreed

the fact that her client failed to discharge his duty on time he was not given cooperation by the other members of the family especially one Lubasha and his family, however appellant directed other member how to distribute the land and appellant did not appear to that meeting because the alleged land which was supposed to be divided belonged to him and his family. 10 More on that, Mr. Salulu submitted that, 1st respondent and Goyahi Magiliginga, left Ipeja and Mtakuja to Igunga since 1960 and the said land was not left in care of appellant. Moreover, the 1st respondent is living at old Shinyanga and he never came back to Ipeja, until 1989 and he stayed for one week. 1st respondent knew nothing about that land thus why he prayed to be appointed in order to administer the land of 163 while the said land which alleged to be sold had 75 acres only. Mr. Sululu said that the decision of appointment was delivered on 23/9/2019 and not 28/10/2019 as the respondent advocate told this court. However, the distribution was conducted on 7/3/2022 and 17/3/ 2022 and he insisted that all acts done by 1st respondent was illegal as he was no longer the administrator of the Goyayi Magiliginga he sold the Suitland on his own capacity and not on behalf of others. Moreover, Mr. Sululu submitted that the case of Nyamande cited by respondent is distinguishable with present case because in that case the

administrator discharged his duties when he was administrator but in our present case administrator did the same while he was no longer the administrator. 11 Lastly, he prayed this appeal to be allowed, and maintain status quo, the buyers to be returned their money. Having scanned the submission filed by both parties, the issue for deliberation is whether the appeal has merit. I am aware that this court being the 1st appellate court has power to re-evaluate the evidence on the record and drawn its own inference and findings of fact subject, having regard to the fact that the trial court had the advantage of watching and assessing the witness as they gave evidence. See the case of Paulina Samson Ndawavya vs. Theresia Thomas Madaha, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017 CAT Mwanza, Jamal. A. Tamim vs Felix Mkosamali & The Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2012 (unreported) and Martha Wejja vs Attorney General and Another (1982) TLR 35. Remarkably, under Section 110 and 111 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R.E 2019 provides that, 110.-(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. 12 (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. On whom burden of proof lies, 111. The burden of proof in a suit

proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The above principle of law was also stated by the legendary authors of Sarkar on Sarkar's Laws of Evidence, 18 Edn. M.C. Sarkar, S.C. Sarkar, and P.C. Sarkar, published by Lexis Nexis, posted the following comments at page 1896, "... the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, for negative is usually incapable of proof” Also the same principle cherished in the case of Anthony M. Masanga vs Penina (Mama Mgesi) & Lucia (mama Anna) Civil Appeal No 118 CAT (unreported) it was held that ’Let’s begin by re- emphasizing that the ever-cherished principle of law that generally, in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges anything in his favour. We are fortified in our view by provision of section 110 and 11 of the law of Evidence Act Cap Revised Edition, 2002’’ 13 Therefore, in determining this appeal, I shall be guided by the above principles. Starting with the first ground that, the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in proceeding to hear and determine the land dispute which was still going on in probate cause at Itilima Primary Court. Mr. Sululu urged that the appellant challenged the appointment of the 1st respondent to be administrator of the estate of his

father, through Probate Case No 3/2019 at Itilima which was delivered on 6.5.2024 and the said Probate case was filed before the filing of the said land case at tribunal and they prayed to the tribunal to stay this case pending the hearing and determination of the said Probate case, and their prayer was disregarded and the matter proceed and the decision was delivered that 1st respondent was right to sell the said land to 2nd respondent to 13th respondents. Mr. Sululu added that, after the probate case has been determined the 1st respondent was revoked to be administrator of the estate of his father and hence the trial tribunal erred to proceed to hear and determine the said case as there was a pending probate case at Itilima Primary Court. 14 On the other side Ms. Luhigo submitted that the trial tribunal was correct to determine the land case before him because there was a pending appeal at High Court which was between Thobias Lubasha and John Goyahi and later on the same was withdrawn and marked settled. Ms Luhigo said after that order Chairman of tribunal continued to hear the said case before him, and after that decision appellant went to the primary court and file application for revocation of John Goyahi Magiliginga to be administrator of the said estate. Additionally, Ms. Luhigo said that John Goyani was appointed as the administrator of the estate of his father on 28th,

October, 2019 and that was a reasons why chairman proceed with the case and even the said appeal no 51/2022 talks nothing about the appointment and revocation of the 1st respondent as administrator of the estate of the late Goyahi Magiliginga. I am aware that in civil cases the burden of proof is on balance of probability. Thus, every party to the suit has an evidential burden to be discharged and the Judge or Magistrate in deciding any civil claim has to compare whose evidence is heavier than the other. The emphasis was made in the case of Mathias Erasto Manga vs. M/S Simon Group (T) Limited, Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2013, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania 15 (unreported), quoted the decision of RE Minor (1966) AC 563 at page 586, in which it was held that: "The balance of probability standard means a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence the occurrence of the event was more likely than not" Having scanned the submission of both parties and going through the trial court records. Indeed, the records shows that the 1st respondent one John Goyayi Magiliginga was appointed by Itilima primary court on 28/10/2019 and the Land Application No. 3 of 2022 at Kishapu District Land and Housing Tribunal was received on 19th July 2022 and the same was decided on 1st August 2024. There was no evidence to prove that the 1st respondent was revoked by the

primary court on 6/05/2024 as alleged by Mr. Sululu. However, there was PC Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2022 High Court at Shinyanga arising from probate Revision No. 1/2020 at Kishapu District Court and originated from probate cause No 03 of 2019 Itilima Primary Court but the same was withdrawn and marked settled on 1/3/2023. 16 I join my hand with M.s Luhigo that trial chairman was right to proceed with land case because there was no probate case pending at Itilima Primary Court, even the said appeal no 51/2022 which was withdrawn on 1/3/2023 talks nothing about the appointment and revocation of the 1st respondent as administrator of the estate of the late Goyahi Magiliginga and therefore the respondents’ evidence overweighed the appellant’s evidence as it was held in the case of Hemedi Said vs Mohamedi Mbilu (1984) TLR 113. From the above analysis. I find that the first ground of appeal has no merit and it is dismissed. On the second ground of appeal that the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in declaring the 1st respondent as the lawful appointed administrator of the estate of the late GOYAYI MAGILIGINGA while his appointment is fully of irregularities leading to his revocation. Mr. Sululu argued that they challenged his appointment by filing an application for revocation and by the time he sold was already distributed the said land twice on 7/3/2022 and 17/3/2022.

He added that the land was sold on 14-17/3/2022 when the same was not yet distributed to the 17 heirs of the late Goyahi Magiliginga as he was appointed on 23/9/2019 and distribution was done on 2022. Additionally, Mr. Sululu submitted that 1st respondent was directed to close the probate case within six months since his appointment but he did not comply with the said order. Mr. Sululu said that failure to do so seized to be administrator of the deceased estate of his late farther. He referred section 107 (1) (2) of the Probate Administration of the estate Act Cap 352 R:E 2019 gives power to the administrator to seek for leave of extension of time when his/her time elapse after been appointed. He also referred the decision of in the matter of the estate of the late Joaquim Francisco Santana Antonio Fernandes and in the matter of application of extension of time to file inventory by Joanna Adella Menezes Misc Probate and Administration Cause No. 8/2022 H.C Tanga where it was insisted that when time given by the court elapse the appointed person required to seek for extension of time. More on that, Mr. Sululu said that even if 1st respondent was administrator of the estate of his father he was not required to sell the said properties as his duty was not to sell it but to distribute the same to the heirs of the late Goyayi Magiliginga. 18 On her part, Ms. Luhigo submitted that the

trial tribunal was correct to determine this land case before him because there was a pending appeal at High Court which was between Thobias Lubasha and John Goyahi where the same was stayed for three months and later was withdrawn and marked settled. Notably, after that order Chairman of tribunal continued to hear the said case before him, and after that decision appellant went to the primary court and file application for revocation of John Goyahi Magiliginga to be administrator of the said estate. Additionally, Ms. Luhigo argued that John Goyani was appointed as the administrator of the estate of his father on 28th October, 2019 and that was a reasons why chairman proceed with the case of the said appeal no 51/2022 talks nothing about the appointment and revocation of the 1st respondent as administrator of the estate of the late Goyahi Magiliginga. Again, Ms. Luhigo responded that the 1st respondent delayed to distribute the estate of the late father from 2019 to 2022 because Lubasha Goyahi and his son Thobias Lubasha who were not cooperative in that exercise they were not attending to the meeting and at last Lubasha 19 refused to distribute the said land and informing them that the said land belonged to him alone. Ms. Luhigo submitted that administrator failed to distribute the said land until when the District commissioner interfered. They agreed that because Lubasha was

taking care the said land for long time to be given a big portion of land than others, but Lubasha did not attend to that day of distribution however he was given 28 acres, Goyani Goyahi was given 18 acres, Nhwayo Goyahi was given 18 acres,the family of Magiliginga who was a niece of Goyahi was given 21 acres according to the directives given before by the late Goyahi Magiliginga. Moreover, after that distribution some of the family members decided to sell their plots but some members were around so they asked John as administrator to sell their plots in their behalf and after that sell administrator went to close the said probate at Itilima but he was stopped to do so. Again, Ms. Luhigo argued that, the administrator was selected by the family members and he filed Probate Case No. 3/2019 at Itilima, and he was appointed on 28/10/2019. Finally, Ms. Luhigo added that chairman was right to declare the 1st respondent was lawful appointed as the same was done by the Itilima Primary Court Magistrate. 20 I have exhausted submission from both parties and going through the court records. I find that the 1st respondent was appointed by Itilima Primary Court on 28/10/2019.There is no evidence on records about his revocation. Thus I agree with Ms. Luhigo that the trial tribunal was right to declare that 1st respondent was lawfully appointed because he was appointed by the court and his

appointment was not revoked. More on that, the record shows that clan meeting selected the 1st respondent and thereafter he filed the petition for letters of administration and he was dully appointed by the court on 28/10/2019. Thus I disagree with Mr. Sululu that his appointment is fully of irregularities leading to his revocation while there was no evidence of revocation on records. Moreover, the appellant did not attend to that day of distribution, but the 1st respondent distributed the property to all heirs and appellant was given 28 acres, Goyani Goyahi was given 18 acres, Nhwayo Goyahi was given 18 acres, the family of Magiliginga who was a niece of Goyahi was given 21 acres and therefore appellant is disturbing respondents who bought the suit land from administrator unnecessary. The probate and administration Act cited by the appellant’s counsel is not applicable in primary court and cited case Joaquim (supra) was relevant in probate court and not at this case at hand. 21 Regarding to the issue of failure to file inventory within time was caused by the appellant who refused to appear on the day of the distribution of the property and going cases filed by him still administrator performed his duty of distributing the property to heirs the appellant inclusive. See the case of Godbless Mathew Naibala vs Annet John M.N Lukumay, Civil Application No. 119 & 142, CA

(unreported) and Shumbusho vs Mary Grace Tigerwa & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 183 of 2016 [2020] TZCA 1803. In the above analysis. I decline that the 2nd ground has no merit and it is dismissed too. On the last ground of appeal that the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in declaring the 2nd to the 13th respondents as the lawful purchaser of the suit land from the 1st respondent while he had no legal authority to sell the suit as he did. Mr. Sululu argued that 1st respondent had no any power to sell the said land as he was no longer administrator of the said estate by the time of selling it, and he sold it by his personal capacity while his duty was only to distribute it to the heirs and not to sell it. Mr. Sululu added that the tribunal required to order that 2nd respondent to 13th respondent 22 to be returned their money by 1st respondent pending the probate case between appellant and 1st respondent which is still pending before Itilima District Court. Ms. Luhigo argued that the evidence adduced by respondents was not objected by the appellant. She argued further that by the time sell was conducted the distribution was already done and the application for revocation of the administrator was filed when the administrator had already discharged his duty as administrator of the estate and the Sale agreement was done by administrator on behalf of theirs. Ms.

Luhigo added that trial tribunal cannot order John to return back the money because he discharged his duty as administrator. She referred the case of case of Said Mpambije and another vs Nyamande Swetu Fundikira and 3 others, Civil Appeal No. 430/2022 CAT Tabora which held that when revocation conducted when administrator is already discharge his duties cannot have ordered to pay the said costs, and the said revocation cannot invalidate the said sale agreement. I have considered the submission from both parties and scanned the court records. The evidence revealed that 2nd to 13th respondent bought the suit land from the 1st respondent as administrator of the late Goyayi Magiliginga. The sale agreement between the 1st respondent and 23 2nd to 13th respondents were admitted as exhibits and good enough were witnessed by independent witnesses as well as the local leaders are concern and therefore the sale of the disputed land was lawful. Notably, the 1st respondent being administrator he had power to administer the property of the late Goyayi Magiliginga including the sale and the 2nd to 13th respondent bought the suit land from 1st respondent as administrator and they become bonafide purchaser who must be protected by the law as it was held in the case of Godebertha Rukanga v CRDB Bank and Others, Civil Appeal No. 25 /17 of 2017 held that:- “ In the circumstances, being a bona

fide purchaser for value, and because there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the mortgagee, the 4th Respondent’s right over the suit property is legally protected...’’ See the case of John Bosco Mahongoli v Imlda Zakaria Nkwira and 2 Others, Land Appeal No. 101 of 2016. Moreover, on the issue of the John to return back the money is not proper because 1st respondent discharged his duty as administrator. I agree with submission of Ms. Luhigo that 1st respondent cannot refund the money to 2nd to 13th respondents because he had administered the property to heirs and he helped other heirs to sale their portion as administrator, hence he had discharged his duty as administrator and 24 hence he can’t pay cost and even if there was revocation cannot invalidate the sale agreement as it was held in case of Said Mpambije and another vs Nyamande Swetu Fundikira and 3 others (Supra) that when revocation conducted when administrator is already discharge his duties cannot have ordered to pay the said costs, and the said revocation cannot invalidate the said sale agreement. From the above observations. I find the third ground of appeal has no merit and is dismissed too. That being said, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The decision of the trial tribunal of Kishapu District Land and Housing Tribunal are remained undisturbed. In regard of the nature of the case and relationship of the parties no order for the costs. Ordered accordingly. DATED at SHINYANGA this 8th day of November, 2024. R.B. Massam.

JUDGE 25