20171013 TZHC Mwanza2

_,.. l { ,!~~) ·i IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA <:_/ . ,!.©_? l- AT MWANZA ·>. l .....;-,~ .., f. . MISC. LAND APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2014 . ' I {From the decision of the District and Housing Tribunal of Mara District at Musoma in Consolidated Land Appeal No. 242,243 and 244 of 2013 and Original Ward Tribunal Mihingo Ward in Application no. 9,10 and 11 of 2012} ST · MATINDE MATIKU ...................... 1 APPELLANT WAIKENE WAMBURA ................. 2No APPELLANT MARWA MURANGE ...... .... ........... 3Ro APPELLANT VERSUS WAMBURA MARWA ...................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27/08/2017 & 13/10/2017 GWAE, J The records of the tribunals below reveal that,Marwa Murange , . . Matinde Matiku and Waikene Wambura and successfully instituted a land disputes. against Wambura Marwa before Ward Tribunal of Mihingo . vide Land Application No. 7 OF 2012 and not 9 as wrongly indicated the appellants, Land Application No. 10 of 2012 and Land Application No. 11 of 2012 respectively. Aggrieved by the decisions of the ward tribunal dated 4 th December 2012, the respondent successfully preferred to filing of an appeal to District Land and Housing Tribunal at District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara~~at-~- - . . '\ 1 < ;... Musoma (DLHT) vide Land Appeal No. 244 of 2012, 243 of 2012 and Land . ~ Appeal No. 242 of 2012 c;lgainst the aforementioned respondents now u appellants. The DLHT opined to consolidate the respondent's appeals and finally determined the consolidated appeals in favour of the respondent vide its l .I judgment dated 3rd November 2014 . Aggrieved by the DLHT's decision the appellants opted to filing of this an appeal to this court advancing a total of ten grounds of appeal but mainly there are, three, notably, firstly, grounds, that the 1st appellate tribunal I erred in law and fact for failure to objectively consider the evidence 1 adduced before the trial tribunal, secondly, that the appellate tribunal erred in law by consolidating while each appellant had different claim and thirdly that, the DLHT filed to consider that the appellants used the land in dispute for more than 12 years The appellants and respondent had advocacy services from Mr. Adam and Mr. Tuguta assisted by Kiburika respectively. The appeal was agreed to be argued by way of written submissions. While in the appellant's written submission, their counsel preferred to argue only 1 st and 2 nd ground of appeal as summarized herern. I have con~idered the submissions of both parties pertaining to the ground number two on the purported consolidation by DLHT of three and distinct respondent's distinct appeals against three different appellants. I am of the view that the DLHT might have rightly consolidated the appeals filed by the appellant, Wambura Marwa now respondent but this subject to how t h e ~ 2 . _contentious issues were dealt with was each issue in respect of each party thoroughly and fairly considered. v It is true that the DLHT has wide range of appellate and revisional powers when hearing appeals· from ward tribunals pursuant tm section 35 ( 1) of Land Disputes Courts Act, (Cap 216 R. E, 2002) including power to consolidate appeals filed before it as rightly submitted by the respondent's counsel for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of cases, in Transport Equipment Limited v Devram p. Valambhia (1992) TLR 182, Court of Appeal emphasized consolidation by stating that to refuse to consolidate will be to fragment the process and delay the outcome. To my considered view, consolidation is obvious where the matters before the court of instance was heard and determined with different parties but each party files his appeal at different time with different number of its registration, in this situation consolidation is ordinarily preferable and desirable to avoid unnecessary delay. In case of cases filed and adjudicated by courts in their original jurisdiction, I think consolidation is rarely convenient unless by doing so every aspect of individual case shall be dealt at lengthy. However it must also be borne in our minds that each case must be decided on its own sets of facts. In our present case, it is patently clear that each appellant instituted his own case against the respondent and thereafter the respondent felt aggrieved by the trial tribunal's decisions. If one looks at the evidence adduced by each party during trial together with cause of action, limitation of time, issue of host and invitee vs. doctrine o f ~ • 3 ·t . I I lI ·l , I ' I I j 5 ; ·1