Madon Kagambi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MOROGORO SUB REGISTRY) AT MOROGORO LAND REVISION NO. 7353 OF 2024 (arising from misc. civil application no. 120 OF 2022) MADON KAGAMBI APPLICANT SEIF SOUD SEIF (administrstor of estate OF LATE JOHA HASSAN KINGOMAJE) RESPONDENT Date of Last 0rder:29/08/2024 Date of Ruling: 06/09/2024 RULING MAGOIGA,J. Under the provision of sections 41 and 43(1) (b) and 2 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, [Cap 216 R.E.2019] and section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code,[Cap 33 R.E 2019] the applicant instituted this revision asking this court to revise the ruling and order of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Ifakara at Kilombero made from Land Application No.120 of 2022 after doing the following: - i. To call for records of proceedings, examine, revise and quash the ruling and drawn orders of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Kilombero at Ifakara in Misc. Application No. 120 of 2022 for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the ruling and drawn order dated 21/11/2023 before Hon. C.P. Kamugisha; ii. To order that the respondent had no locus stand at the time of fHing case in the Tribunal, hence, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter before the parties as per ruling in Kilombero District Court at Ifakara in Probate Appeal No. 06 of 2022 before Hon. B.L. Saning'o- RMl; ill. That this honourable court be pleased to revise the proceedings, judgement and order so as to nullify the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Kilombero at Ifakara in Misc. Land Application No.120 of 2022 to the extent that the application in the trial court was not dully appointed as administrator of estate hence he has no locus stand to institute the case this the trial Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The application was supported by the affidavit of the applicant stating the sole reason that the District Court of Kilombero in Probate Appeal No. 06 of 2022 nullified the appointment of the respondent as an administrator of estate of the late Hassan Kingomanje, as such, has no locus to execute the orders subject of this application and that by the time the ruling was entered the respondent was no longer duly appointed administrator of estate of the late Hassan Kingomanje. Upon being served with the counter affidavit, the respondent through Mr. Elijah Bageni, learned advocate filed a counter affidavit disputing and insisted that the respondent was and is stili dully appointed administrator of estate of the late Hassan Kingomanje. When this matter was called on for hearing, the applicant appeared in person and unrepresented while the respondent had the legal services of Mr. Elijah Bageni, learned advocate. The matter was argued by way of written submissions. I have had time to go through both proceedings in Misc. Land Application No.120 of 2022, chamber summons, affidavit, counter affidavit, reply to the counter affidavit, rivaling written submissions for and against this application, but without much ado and with due respect to the applicant, the instant application is wholly misconceived and misleading. The order subject of all allegations against the respondent arises from the Probate Appeal No. 06 of 2022, which order did not provide what the applicant is trying to portray in this application. The order was, as correctly argued by Mr. Bageni, on failure to hear the parties who were challenging the appointment of the respondent. The applicant has deliberately and for reasons best known to him shun away from telling this court what was the outcome of the matter after it was heard before another magistrate as ordered by the District Court. This is other than trying to mislead this court whiie the obvious are res ipsa loquitor. The applicant to show that he is doing trying and error in reply to counter affidavit is raising other new matters of time to administer the estate in repiy which if considered will deny the respondent right to be heard and as such ignored. On that note, I find the entire application misieading, misconceived and was fiied without any iota of merits. I find nothing wrong to revise and consequently hereby dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. Dated at Ifakara this 06^^ day of September, 2024 co'ORr Uj X y 2: S.M. MAGOIGA JUDGE 06/09/2024 COURT: Ruling deiivered in the presence of the appiicant and Mr. Eiijah Bageni, iearned advocate for respondent who is aiso present at Ifakara in chambers today 06.09.2024. X S. M. MAG( JUDGE 06/09/2024 COURT: Right of appeal fully explained 0^ o UJ X. > S. M. MAG IGA JUDGE 06/09/2024