LAND APPEAL 21639 Mrope

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL NO.21639 OF 2024 (Arising from Land Application No. 242 of2021, of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kinondoni) MADARAKA MOHAMED MROPE (Administrator of the Estate of the late Mohamed Mfaume Mrope)............................. APPELLANT VERSUS MOHAMED SHABANI MROPE (Administrator of the Estate of the late Shabani Mohamed Mrope)....................................... 1st RESPONDENT NOEL ESTATE COMPANY LTD.............................. 2nd RESPONDNT RULING Date of Last Order: 24.10.2024 Date ofJudgment: 30.10.2024 T.N. MWENEGOHA, J: The Appeal originates from the Decision of the Kinondoni District Land and Housing Tribunal, herein after called the Trial Tribunal, which delivered its Decision in favour of the respondents, in Land Application No.242 of 2021. Dissatisfied with the Decision of the Trial Tribunal, the appellant filed the instant Appeal, with six grounds of Appeal. However, I will not list the grounds of Appeal, for serving this Court's time, as I have noted that, the competency of the Appeal at hand is wanting. It is due to the fact that, there are necessary parties who were not joined in the case. These are the Commissioner for Lands, Registrar of Title and Ubungo Municipal Council. i Advocate Daud Mzeri, for the appellant, while addressing the Court on the issue insisted that the reasons behind joining these necessary parties is due to the fact that there is a Certificate of Occupancy over the suit land. That, Ubungo Municipal Council is about to cancel the said Title. Therefore, it is necessary that he should be summoned to Court. Having heard the submissions regarding the issue raised, I am bound to determine the competence of the Appeal before me. I will hereby refer to the case of Tanzania Railways Corporation (TRC) vs. GBP (T) Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2020, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, (unreported), as cited in approval in Mariam Amir Millinga & 11 Others versus Peter Peter Junior & 2 Others, as mentioned above. Upon finding that the entities which granted the land were necessary parties, the Court had this to say:- "l/l/e must stress as we wind up, that ifa Trial Court notes that some issues raised in the pleadings call for addition of a party whose absence will lead to such issues of importance to remain unresolved, then the Court cannot fold its arms and assume a rote ofan onlooker, a bystander or a passer-by, only because parties are resistant or unwilling to apply to join a necessary party or parties. The Court has a duty to take an active rote by taking matters on itself and add such a party or parties to the proceedings in order to facilitate effective and complete adjudication and resolution of all issues of controversy presented before it. That is what we hold to be the position of law. It is our holding further that, had the Trial Court been keen enough as it should have, it would have required the 2 respondent to amend its plaint and join the authority that granted land to it, or else, as stated above the Court would have taken matters in its own hands and joined either the Commissioner for Lands or the Kigoma Ujiji Municipal Council to the proceedings." Guided by the quoted authority, I am of the settled view that, in the circumstances surrounding this case, parties named by Mr. Mzeri above, are necessary parties. As claimed by both parties in their pleadings, the plaintiff annexed a Certificate of Title in the Application, while the defendants also annexed a different Title over the same land to their joint written statement of defence. These documents are from different land authorities. For these reasons, authorities named above are necessary parties in the instant suit. Without them, the Court cannot pass an effective Decree, see Abdullatif Mohamed Hamis versus Mehboob Yusuf Osman & Another, Civil Revision NO. 6 OF 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, (unreported). Therefore, it was wrong for the Trial Tribunal to proceed with the case in their absence and what was done is null and void. In the event, I use my given under section 43 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216, R.E 2019 and proceed to revise and nullify the whole proceedings of the Trial Tribunal, vide Land Application No.242 of 2021, quash its Decision and aside its Orders. No order as to costs. 30/10/2024 3