20140303 TZCA Arusha

i ,_ t IN THE COURT OF APPEALOF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (CORAM: BWANA, J.A; MANDIA, J.A; And ORIYO, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2013 1. MARY KIMATI, 2. BETTY MANJIRA, 3. MARGRETH KIWIA, 4. PERPETUA SEMBWANA, ...................................... APPELLANTS 5. EDWARD CHUWA, 6. EDELINA SHIRIMA VERSUS 1. TANZANIA BUILDING AGENCY, 2. JOHN WAMBALI, 3. ANTHONY JOHN 4. IELIEZA JOHN MWAKAAGE RESPONDENTS 5. FLORIAN SHIRIMA 6. PASCALIA FRANCIS NYAMBOLI Appeal from the. Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania (Land Division) at Arusha (Massengi, J.) Dated the 24th day of April, 2013 in High Court Land Division Case No. 27 of 2008 RULING OF THE COURT 3 rd March, 2014 ORIYO, J .. By prior Notice, the first respondent, TBA, through the service of its legal counsel Mr. Ntui Mwakahesya, learned State Attorney, challenges the competency of the a~peal preferred by the appellants in this Court. 1 , The objection is that the app_ellants have failed to comply with the provisions of section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Acts No. 2 of 2002. The provision mandatorily requires that appeals against decisions of the High Court Land Division to this Court have to be with the leave of the High Court, Land Division. In response the appellants prayed for time to engage another advocate after their former counsel abandoned them only last week. They intend to have the next advocate deal with the objection as it ought to under the law, the appellants being laymen. As much as the Court sympathises with the appellants having found themselves in this situation, we are of the firm view that any adjournment will not positively advance the appellants' or the respondents interests but to cause further delays in this matter. Section 47(1) of the Land Dispute Settlement Act, makes it mandatory that all appeals to this Court from. the decisions of the· High Court Land Division, have to be with prior leave of the High Court. In the circumstances of the appeal before us, with no prior leave of the High Court L.and Division, it renders the appeal incompetently before us. It is accordingly struck out._ 2 Subject to the Law of Limitation, the appellants may reinstitute the appeal in compliance with section 47 (1) of the Land Disputes Act.· We make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED at ARUSHA this 3 rd day of March, 2014. S.J. BWANA JUSTICE OF APPEAL W.S. MANDIA- JUSTICE OF APPEAL K.K. ORIYO JUSTICE OF APPEAL I certify th this is a true copy of the original. C. M.A. MP\ WO D PUTYREG OURT OFAP C::.·.