mbaruku shadadi vs sifa mohamed 2020 tzhclandd 17 17 march 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2018 (Arising from Land Appeal No. 71 o f 2016 at The High Court o f Tanzania (Land Division), originate from Application No. 33 o f 2014 District Land and Housing Tribunal at Temeke) MBARUKU SHADADI (On behalf of Hassan Mbaruku - Minor)......................... ..APPLICANT VERSUS SIFA MOHAMED..................................................... RESPONDENT RULING: I. MAIGE, 3 1. This is an application for extention of time to appeal against a decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Temeke dated 19/05/2015 which emanates from Application No. 33 of 2014. 2. In accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of the application, the decision under discussion was faulted vide Land Appeal No. 71 of 2016 which was, on 19/09/2017, dismissed. 3. The applicant appears to have been aggrieved by both the decision of the District Land an^UHonsi^g Tribunal and what he calls the ex-parte decision of this Court on appeal. Like the respondent, the applicant in this matter appeared in person and was not represented. 4. In the application, I have noted, the extension of time sought is for the purpose of challenging the decision of District Land and Housing Tribunal by way of appeal. It has nothing to do with the decision of this Court on appeal. 5. Therefore, in his notice of preliminary objection, the respondent has questioned the maintainability of this application in so far as it seeks an extension of time to prefer an appeal which is resjudicata to the decision of this Court in Land Appel No. 71 of 2016. He submitted so in his written submissions. 6. The Applicant did not, in his submissions, make any remark on this obvious issue. I have noted however that he was unrepresented in this matter. 7. The issue raised in the preliminary objection is obvious and needs not consume the precious time of this Court. The applicant applies for intention of time to appeal against the same decision of the District Land and Hosing Tribunal which was upheld by this Court in Land Appeal No. 71 of 2016. 8. In my view, the application is totally misconceived. This Court having dismissed the Land ApjjeaJ-N&^l of 2016, it cannot 7l entertain a simitar appeal involving the same parties. The Court is estopped by the rule of resjudicata. 9. The remedy available to the applicant was to prefer a further appeal to the Court of Appeal or if the judgment was ex-parte to apply for setting aside the same. 10. On that account therefore, the application is struck out with costs, for being incompetent. It is so ordered. JUDGE 17/03/2020 Date: 17/03/2020 Coram: Hon. C. Tengwa - DR For the Applicant: Absent For the Respondent: Present RMA: Bukuku COURT: Ruling delivered today in the presence of the respondent and in the absence of the applicant. C. Tengwa DEPUTY REGISTRAR 17/03/2020 4