MARITA NYANDA 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA LAND APPEAL NO. 14759 OF 2024 (Arising from DLHT Land Appeal No. 50 of 2022, originating from Ward Tribunal Land Application No.l of 2021) MARITA NYANDA...................................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS MWANDU JUAKALI................................................................ RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 26/11/2024 & 13/12/2024 ROBERT. J:- The appellant, Marita Nyanda, being dissatisfied with the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) in Land Appeal No. 50 of 2022, has approached this Court seeking the orders that the appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree of the DLHT be vacated and quashed and costs of the appeal be awarded. The appeal is premised on the following grounds: 1. That the Honourable Chairman erred in iaw and in fact by holding that the Ward Tribunal in the prior proceedings was seized with the requisite jurisdiction to determine the suit; i 2. That the Honourable Chairman erred in law and in fact by holding that the Ward Tribunal sat with the requisite column (sic) while determining the suit. The Court, having directed that the appeal be argued by way of written submissions, received arguments from both sides. The appellant was represented by Mr. Gibson Ishengoma, learned Advocate, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Demetrius Mtete, learned Advocate. In support of the appeal, Mr. Ishengoma combined and argued the grounds of appeal jointly. He contended that the jurisdiction of the Ward Tribunal was vitiated due to the improper participation of the Tribunal Secretary in both the proceedings and the decision-making process. He argued that the signature of the Tribunal Secretary appeared on the front page of the Tribunal's proceedings, which, in his view, raised questions about the legality of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. He further submitted that the Tribunal Secretary is limited to clerical and administrative functions and is not authorized to participate in decision-making or append a signature to the Tribunal’s decision. Relying on Regulation 4 of the Ward Tribunals (Judicial Procedures) Regulations, 2003, he asserted that only members who actively participate in decision­ making are entitled to authenticate the Tribunal's decisions and proceedings. He maintained that the Secretary's actions exceeded the statutory mandate and rendered the decision invalid. Mr. Ishengoma referred to the case of Juma vs Salum [2002] T.L.R. 150, where the court emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements concerning the composition and procedures of Tribunals, he prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the decisions of the lower Tribunals to be set aside. In response, Mr. Mtete argued that there was no deviation from statutory requirements. He contended that the signature of the Secretary appeared only on the cover page of the Tribunal's proceedings, which has no legal effect on the decision or proceedings. He stated that the decision's participants were listed at the end of the document, and the Secretary's name was not among them, indicating that the Secretary did not participate in the decision-making process. Mr. Mtete further argued that the absence of the Secretary's signature in the quorum list confirmed non-participation in the proceedings. He distinguished the cited authorities, asserting that the Tribunal was properly constituted and that the proceedings and decision were regular. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with costs. Having considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the record, this Court finds it necessary to address the issue of whether the presence of the Tribunal Secretary's signature on the cover page of the Tribunal's proceedings vitiated its decision. The appellant's counsel argued that the Secretary's signature indicated improper participation in the Tribunal's decision-making process. However, the record reveals that the signature in question appeared only on the cover page of the proceedings and not in the substantive proceedings or decision. The list of participants at the end of the decision did not include the Secretary's name, further confirming non-participation. The Court finds no evidence to support the claim that the Secretary's actions violated the statutory requirements or rendered the decision invalid. The mere presence of a signature on the cover page does not constitute an irregularity capable of vitiating the proceedings unless it can be shown to have occasioned a failure of justice. The appellant has failed to demonstrate such failure or provide sufficient proof of irregularities. This Court aligns with the respondent's submission that adherence to statutory requirements was observed, and no deviation or irregularity occurred in the proceedings or decision of the Ward Tribunal. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the appellant's claims, this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. x /j y —\1 _ K.N. ROBERT JUDGE 13/12/2024