maingu masululi vs nyombo mafuru 2021 tzhc 5956 31 august 2021

maingu masululi vs nyombo mafuru 2021 tzhc 5956 31 august 2021

The participation of Maiga B. Manyama, who was previously a witness in the same subject matter, as chairman of the ward tribunal constituted bias and violated the principles of natural justice. The proceedings and judgments of both the ward tribunal and the DLHT are set aside and the matter is to be heard de novo by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
maingu masululi vs nyombo mafuru 2021 tzhc 5956 31 august 2021
Parties
Appellant: Maingu Masululi; Respondent: Nyombo Mafuru
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
31 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Second Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal, Originating From Ward Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bias in Adjudication, Natural Justice, Ward Tribunal Procedure, Right to Fair Hearing
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Bias in Adjudication Natural Justice Ward Tribunal Procedure Right to Fair Hearing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maingu Masululi

Appellant

Nyombo Mafuru

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Appeal / Second Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal, Originating From Ward Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ward tribunal was biased due to participation of a member who was previously a witness in the same subject matter
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings and judgments of the ward tribunal and DLHT should be set aside for breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The participation of Maiga B. Manyama, who was previously a witness in the same subject matter, as chairman of the ward tribunal constituted bias and violated the principles of natural justice. The proceedings and judgments of both the ward tribunal and the DLHT are set aside and the matter is to be heard de novo by a differently constituted ward tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments of the DLHT and ward tribunal set aside
  • Proceedings before the DLHT and ward tribunal quashed