Melau Mauna, Joel Metivan (Legal Representative of Metivan Tenges), Francis Mwoita, John Mwoita, Raymond Philipo (Legal Representative of Philipo Longituti), Emanuel Lenakooni, Logalaa Mauna, Jocob Francis, Raymond Philipo, Paulo Ikayo, Leah Daudi (Legal Representative of Daudi Losujaki), Julius Mwoita, Lonyakwa Melau, Lovoyo Melau, Christopher John, Herman Mwoita, Kaka Francis, Loreu Lopakwani, Samboti Ngosia, Tubalai Philipo, Mauna Longututi, Tukai Mauna v The Registered Trustees of Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania (ELCT) Arusha Diocese and Arumeru District Council

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPLICATION NO. 000018171 OF 2026 MELAU MAUNA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF JOEL METIVAN ( LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF METIVAN TENGES) .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF FRANCIS MWOITA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF JOHN MWOITA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF RAYMOND PHILIPO (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF PHILIPO LONGITUTI) .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF EMANUEL LENAKOONI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF LOGALAA MAUNA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF JOCOB FRANCIS .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF RAYMOND PHILIPO .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF PAULO IKAYO .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF LEAH DAUDI (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DAUDI LOSUJAKI) .............................. Page. 1 COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF JULIUS MWOITA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF LONYAKWA MELAU .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT LOVOYO MELAU .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / / PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER JOHN .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF HERMAN MWOITA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF KAKA FRANCIS .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF LOREU LOPAKWANI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT SAMBOTI NGOSIA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / / PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF TUBALAI PHILIPO .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF MAUNA LONGUTUTI .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT TUKAI MAUNA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / / PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF VERSUS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TANZANIA (ELCT) ARUSHA DIOCESE .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT Page. 2 ARUMERU DISTRICT COUNCIL .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING KULITA, J The applicants have moved this Court by way of Chamber Summons made under section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code, [Cap. 33 R.E. 2023], seeking, principally, an order for rectification of errors appearing in the proceedings, Judgment and Decree in Land Case No. 13 of 2004, which was determined by this Court on 5th September 2012. The application is supported by the affidavit of Sara Severini Lawena, learned Advocate for the applicants. The affidavit sets out several alleged errors appearing in the proceedings, Judgment and Decree. It is alleged, among other things, that the proceedings contain the names of 26 plaintiffs instead of the original 25 plaintiffs; that the names of two plaintiffs were duplicated; that the name of the Arumeru District Council, said to have been a third party, does not appear in the proceedings; that the proceedings do not bear the Court stamp; that the Judgment is not dated; that the Judgment does not contain the names of all the plaintiffs; that the Decree does not contain the names of the plaintiffs; that the decree is dated 5th September 2013 whereas the judgment is stated to have been delivered on 5th September 2012; and that the Arumeru District Council is referred to as the second defendant instead of the third party. Page. 3 When the matter came for hearing, Ms. Zamaradi, learned State Attobney for the respondents, informed the Court that the respondents had received the applicants' application and, since they had no objection to the application, prayed for a date for ruling. The application was therefore not opposed. I have carefully considered the Chamber Summons, the affidavit in support, the Applicants' written submissions, the position taken by the respondents and the record before me. The issue which, in my view this court is called upon for determination at this stage is; “Whether the applicants have properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023.” Section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that: “Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties”. The provision is commonly referred to as the “slip rule”. Its purpose is to enable the Court to correct an accidental, clerical or arithmetical mistake without altering the substance of the decision already made. It is therefore not a general power to reopen, reconsider or materially alter a judgment or decree. Page. 4 In the present application, the applicants are not merely asking the Court to correct a typographical error, a miscalculation or an accidental slip in the spelling of a name. They seek substantial alterations to the proceedings, Judgment and Decree. In particular, they ask the Court to alter the number and identity of the plaintiffs, insert a party into the proceedings, alter the description of a party from “second Defendant” to “third party”, insert the names of parties into the Judgment and Decree, address the absence of a Court stamp, correct the date of the Decree and rectify other matters said to be inconsistent with the pleadings and the proceedings. In my considered view, these are not matters which can properly be characterized, collectively, as mere clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips within the narrow contemplation of section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code. Some of the alleged errors may, when considered separately, appear to be clerical. However, the Court is required to look at the substance and effect of the orders sought. The applicants essentially invite this Court to revisit and reconstruct material portions of the record, Judgment and Decree in Land Case No. 13 of 2004. That exercise goes beyond the limited jurisdiction conferred upon the Court by section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code. The position is further demonstrated by Victor W. Meena & Another v Arusha Technical College, Civil Appeal No. 515 of 2020, where the Court of Page. 5 Appeal recognised the importance of the slip rule in ensuring that court records accurately reflect what was actually decided, while at the same time maintaining that the correction must remain within the permissible scope of correcting an accidental slip or omission. The underlying principles are that an act of the Court should not prejudice a party and that the Court has a duty to ensure that its records represent the true state of affairs. Those principles, however, do not confer upon the Court an unlimited power to alter a judgment under the guise of rectification. It is my considered view that the relief sought by the applicants cannot properly be granted under section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code. The applicants' affidavit itself demonstrates that their complaint is directed not merely at an accidental typographical error but at what they regard as errors apparent on the record and material inconsistencies between the pleadings, proceedings, Judgment and Decree. Such complaints call for judicial consideration by way of review not as the way it has been filed. The appropriate statutory avenue for review is section 88 of the Civil Procedure Code, read together with Order XLII rule 1. Order XLII rule 1 recognises, among others, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and any other sufficient reason as grounds upon which a party may seek review of a decree or order from the Court which passed it. Page. 6 It follows, therefore, that the applicants ought to have approached the Court through the procedure applicable to review if their complaint was that the Judgment and Decree contained material errors apparent on the face of the record. They could not properly use section 106 as a vehicle for obtaining substantive alterations to the proceedings, Judgment and Decree. The fact that the respondents have not opposed the application does not cure the defect in the manner in which the Court has been moved. Jurisdiction and the proper procedure for invoking jurisdiction are matters of law which cannot be conferred upon the Court by consent of the parties. As the Court of Appeal has repeatedly held, parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by consent where the law has prescribed a particular procedure. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the present application has been brought under a provision which does not confer upon this Court the jurisdiction to grant the substantive reliefs sought. The defects complained of are, in their cumulative effect, material and go beyond the limited scope of correction contemplated under section 106 of the Civil Procedure Code, [Cap. 33 R.E. 2023]. Consequently, Misc. Land Application No. 18171 of 2026 is hereby struck out for being incompetent. Considering that the respondents did not oppose the application and, through their learned Advocate, expressly informed the Court that they had no Page. 7 objection to it, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated at ARUSHA this 20th of August 2026 . S. M KULITA JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 8