LUCY KAYANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB-REGISTRY ATTABORA LAND APPEAL NO. 25594 OF 2023 (Arising from District Land and Housing Tribunal of Tabora in Land Application No. 29 of 2019) LUCY KAYANDA SEKASUA (As administratrix of the estate of the late SEKASUA ANDERSON MNDEME)............................... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. HAJI RAJABU 2. RAJABU HAJI 3. HASHIM MOHAMED THABIT (As Administrator RESPONDENTS of the estate of MOHAMED ABDU THABIT RULING 9th and 11th April, 2025 MIRINDO, J.: [1 ] Lucy Kayanda Sekasua sued as an administratrix of the estate of her late husband Sekasua Anderson Mndeme in connection with a plot he supposedly purchased. Before Tabora District Land and Housing Tribunal, she sued three persons, namely, Haji Rajabu, Rajabu Haji, and Ally Thabit (the respondents). Each of the respondent entered his defence. Part of the third respondent defence was that the land in dispute belonged to Mohamed Thabit. After the closure of Lucy’s case, and when the respondents were called to present their case on 11th May 2022, Mr. Saikon Justine Nokolen, learned 1 advocate for the third respondent, informed the Tribunal that they had registered a document for use in evidence, being a “General Power of Attorney” issued by Mohamed Thabit in November 2017. He likewise informed the Tribunal that Mohamed Thabit had passed away and as a result the power of attorney issued ceased to operate. He prayed for “adjournment” of the case till the appointment of an administrator of the estate of Mohamed Thabit. Mr. Kamaliza Kamoga Kayaga, learned counsel for Lucy, had no objection; he insisted that the case should not be “stayed” but it should be set down for mention on different dates until the process of appointment of the administrator was finalised. [2] After several adjournments, both parties re-appeared before the Tribunal on 11th July 2023 and Mr. Nokolen notified the Tribunal the administrator had been appointed and made two prayers. First, he asked for the replacement of Ally Thabit with Hashim Mohamed Thabit, the administrator of the estate of the late Mohamed Thabit. Secondly, he noted that there was an error in the naming of the third respondent as Ally Thabit as he should have been named as “Mohamed Abdu Thabit.” Finally, Mr. Nokolen informed the Tribunal that Hashimu Mohamed Thabit is outside the country and that the latter granted a power of attorney to “Ally Mohamed Thabit” to represent him in the proceedings. Mr. Nokolen asked for Tribunal’s indulgence to register the power of attorney. Mr. Kayaga had no objection, and much as the Tribunal made no specific order these prayers were implicitly granted and henceforth Hashim Mohamed Thabit became the third respondent in place of Ally Thabit. 2 [3] The respondents’ case proceeded as such to the finality of the case and the Tribunal dismissed Lucy’s case while holding in favour of the estate of the late “Mohamed Abdu Thabit.” [4] Lucy appealed to the High Court at Tabora. After hearing the appeal on 13th March 2025, I reserved the matter for judgment. After a thorough reading of the proceedings I discovered the odd way in which Mohamed Thabit or Mohamed Abdu Thabit was brought into the proceedings after the completion of Lucy’s case. I re-summoned parties to address me on this abnormality. At the resumed hearing both counsel conceded that the above facts reveal serious irregularities. Mr. kayaga argued that the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand because it gave remedies to a wrong party in the proceedings. He asked the Court to nullify the proceedings and each party be ordered to bear its own costs. Mr. Nokolen noticed that the problem started from the third respondent’s written statement of defence. He clarified that once the third respondent pleaded that the plot belonged to “Mohamed Abdu Thabit,” it was important that the latter be added as a party to the proceedings. He pleaded with the Court to quash the judgment and entire proceedings before 22nd November 2019, case be remanded to the trial tribunal and Mohamed Thabit be added as a party to the case. The first respondent did not have much to say as this was a purely legal question. Like in the Tribunal, the second respondent defaulted appearance even after substituted service. [5] There is no doubt that the Tribunal was led astray in replacing Ally Thabit with the administrator of “Mohamed Abdu Thabit” given that Mohamed Thabit was not an 3 original party for whom Hashim Mohamed Thabit could be joined as the administrator of his estate. [6] For these reasons, I invoke the revisional powers of this Court and quash the proceedings of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora from when the third respondent filed his written statement of defence to the conclusion of the trial and the resultant judgment and decree. For avoidance of doubt, I retain the entire proceedings from the commencement of the case up to 13th August 2020 when the Tribunal was informed that the second respondent had filed his written statement of defence. [7] I remand the case to the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora for continuation with next steps in the proceedings within sixty days after the return of the case file from this Court. It is further ordered that the proceedings should continue before a different chairperson and set of assessors. Each party to bear its own costs. DATED at TABORA this 11th day of April, 2025 F.M. MIRINDO JUDGE 4 COURT: Ruling delivered in chambers this 11th day of April, 2025 in the presence of the appellant’s counsel, Mr. Kamaliza Kamoga Kayaga, third respondent's counsel, Mr. Saikon Justine Nokolen, and in the presence of the first respondent but in the absence of the second respondent. B/Clerk: Omari Mkong (SRMA) Present. F.M. MIRINDO JUDGE 11/4/2025 COURT: Right of appeal explained. F.M. MIRINDO JUDGE 11/4/2025 5