mohamed a diyanga another vs halili omari 2023 tzhc 22624 31 october 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MOROGORO SUB-REGISTRY)

AT MOROGORO LAND APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2022 {Arising from Land Appiication No. 69 of2014 before the District Land and Housing Tribunaifor Morogoro, at Morogord) MOHAMED A. DIYANGA 1^ APPELLANT WAZIRI HATIBU 2'^° APPELLANT

VERSUS

HALILI OMARI RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT 31^' October, 2023 CHABA. 3. ■ This case has had a chequered history. It stemmed from the Judgment and Decree of the District Land and Housing Tribunal (the DLHT/triai Tribunal) for Morogoro, at Morogoro in Land Application No. 69 of 2014. The appellants through legal services of Mr. Derick Vicent, learned advocate, filed their joint Petition of Appeal in this Court on 18''^ March, 2022. The destine of the instant appeal is to challenge the, decision of trial, DLHT delivered by Hon. R.W. Mmbando dated on February, 2022. In that decision, upon considered and analyzed the facts, evidence and the applicable law, the Hon. Chairperson found that, each of the applicant spoke over a different parcel of land in dispute and everyone told the trial DLHT a different story on how he acquired and became a lawful owner of the same.. . 1 I Page Based on that confusion, the Hon. Chairperson was of the settled view that, the appellants' joint application was unrelated and unmaintainable in law, hence proceeded to dismiss the Land Application No. 69 of 2014 with costs. At the hearing of this appeal, which was canvassed by way of written submissions, both parties enjoyed the legal services from the learned trained legal persons. While the appellants were represented by Mr. Derick Vicent, learned advocate, Mr. Alpha Boniphace, also learned advocate entered appearance for the respondent.

In an endeavour to deal with the instant appeal, I will highlight what actually transpired before the trial DLHT, the anomalies that I noticed during perusal of the entire Court records and finally come up to my own findings taking into consideration that, this Court being the first appellate Court, is vested with powers to re-evaluate, analyze, and consider the evidence on record. This position of the law was underscored by the Court of Appeal of, Tanzania in the case Deemay Daati and 2 others Vs. Republic(2005)TLR 132, where the Court held: . . "The learned Judge on first appeal was entitled to re- evaluate afresh the evidence and come to the conclusion that the appellants were Improperly acquitted by the trial Court". Similar position was elaborated in the case of Ndizu Ngasa Vs. Masisa Magasha (1999) TLR 202, where the Court of Appeal of Tanzania observed that: , 2 I Pa Re "The first appellate Court has a duty to re-assess the evidence ofthe trial Court". The background of the matter before me as discerned from the Court records shows that, the parties in this case have been litigating before the trial Tribunal for almost ten (10) years. The proceedings also display that, the case file has passed in the hands of four different Chairpersons including; Hon. Mr. O.Y. Mbega, Hon. Mr. F'.J. Mafowaridi, Hon. Ms. Khasim and Hon. R.W. Mmbando. All proceedings are in hand written.

In the course of perusing the same, sometimes it was too difficult to read and understand what the respective Chairperson meant on particular point. However,- I,must adrnit that, the two.case files.from the trial DLHT that were brought before this Court cast and gave a light on a wider image over the impacts of land conflicts and conflicts for un-surveyed suit land. The records of the trial tribunal tell a long story of an existing litigation over a small un-sufveyed parcel of land located in Morogoro Municipalityi The original three litigants'never' attempted To'settle their conflicts amicably until'their deaths, each passed away living behind these conflicts. The trial tribunal's records further remind the names of those three individuals who previously had been litigating. Initially, the.dispute was.,between the.late Matata Omari against,the deceased one. Ally Mohamed Diyanga^and Hatibu. Waziri. Up to this moment,,their boiling water and fire.are still .majntained-py the appellants and respondent herein.Though there were,two,different.separate., cases,, but at last those casep were consolidated. In 3 I Pag this regard, questions like; which cases, who consolidated them, why were they consolidated and how were they consolidated / combined together, in my view, are crucial aspects of matters to be considered and carefully addressed in due cause of dealing with this

appeal. According to the records, on 24'^'^ March, 2014, the 2"^ appellant herein (Waziri Hatibu) who was appointed and stood as an administrator of the estate of the deceased, Hatibu Waziri, instituted a matter before the DLHT for Morogoro, at Morogoro against Matata Omari (now the deceased) wherein it was registered as Land Application No. 54 of 2014. In that application, the 2"'^ appellant produced and exhibited to the trial tribunal his locus standias an administrator of the estate of the late Matata Omary by attaching under paragraph 6 (b) of his application form, a. letter of appointment of administration from Morogoro Urban Primary Court in Probate Cause No. 61 of 2014. The letter of administration shows that, he was appointed to take the role of administrator-ship with effect on 19*^*^ day of March, 2014. The said letter of appointment reveals further that, the deceased, Hatibu Waziri died on 25'^'^ May, 2012. It is on records that, the 2"^ appellant stated under paragraph 3 of his application that, the location and address of the suit land was two(2) acres located at Kihonda kwa Manyuki - Kihonda Morogoro. He continued to state under paragraph 4 of his application that, the value of the suit land was Tanzanian Shillings Six Million. (TZS. 6,000,000/= only). As I stated earlier, the 2"^ appellant was suing in the capacity of being an administrator though the facts

that constituted a cause of action against the respondent as exhibited and described 4I Pase at paragraph 6 (a) and the reliefs sought and / or claimed as shown at paragraph 7 of his application were structured as if the applicant(now the 2'^^ appellant) was a sole owner of the suit land. For ease of refence, I find it apt to reproduce the said paragraphs for clarity and better understanding of what actually transpired before the trial tribunal: "6(a). Cause ofaction/briefstatementoffacts constituting the claim. > "thatthe applicanthas been occupying the suitpremises since 198b^s as he acquired the same from the iocai ■ ■■ : government That in 2007 the respondent herein stated . daiming the suit premise is his by suing the daughter of the deceased one Nuru Hatibu who entered a premise after being aiiowed by the deceased to do the same Paragraph 7;Reliefclaimed. "That the Applicant be declared lawful owner of the suit premise". As garnered from the records of the trial tribunal, the same clearly shows that, this case was presided over by Hon. Mr. P. J. Makwandi, Esq., the Chairperson and while the applicant appeared in person, and unrepresented, the respondent Matata Omari throughout enjoyed the legal services of Mr. M.L.K. Kannonyele, the learned advocate from LAWSAM &. Co. Advocates. 5 I Page On the other side, the appellant herein, Mohamed A. Diyanga on the 2""^ day of May,

2014 instituted another land disputes before the same tribunal against the same respondent, Matata Omari. This was Land Application No. 69 of 2014 whereas the appellant sued as an administrator of the estate of the late Ally Mohamed Diyanga. The 1^*^ appellant like the 2""^ appellant did attach to the trial tribunal a copy of the letter of administration where at paragraph 6 (b) of his application form averred that, he was jointly appointed together with Latifa A. Diyanga to stand as the administrator and administratrix of the estates of the late Ally Mohamed Diyanga by the Urban Primary Court of Morogoro via Probate Cause No. 281 of 2010. According tp the records,.their appointments effectively began from l^Vday .of February, 2011 following the demise of the deceased, Aljy Mohamed Diyanga who passed away on 25^'^ January, 2010. In that case, the applicant (1^*^ appellant herein) also disclosed the size of the suit premises and stated further at paragraph 4 of his application that, the location of the suit land was found at Makazi Mapya at Kihonda within Morogoro Municipality and its value was estimated to beTanzanian Shillings Ten Million (TZS. 10,000>000/-. Again, for ease of reference, clarity and better understanding, I feel compelled to reproduce the relevant paragraphs to display what actually transpired at, trial: "Paragraph 3: Location and address of the

suit premises/iand. "Makazi Mapya, Kihonda within Morogoro Municipar, 6 I Pa ee Paragraph 4:Estimated Value ofthe suitproperty. "Ten Million Tanzanian Shiiiings(Tshs. 10,000,000/=)". Under paragraph 6 (a) which provides for the cause of action/brief statement of facts constituting the claim(s), the applicant (1^*^ appellant) claimed to be the lawful owner as follows: "'Thatin 1973,■ the applicantherein was allocated the suit premise by the localgovernment ofMbuyuni of aboutone acre in which applicantcultivatedin itfor ; years. That,In 2012 the respondent herein without coioyr , . , ; , ofrightinvaded the suitprernise even brought the claim to the ward tribunaiciaiming to be the iawfuiowner ofthe suit premise. Paragraph 7;Reliefclaimed. '■ThiS' Honourable. Tribunai be pleased: to declare the . Applicant asdhe lawfulowner of the:suit prerhise" The trial Tribunars records reveal further that, this case was presided over by Hon. Mr.

0. Y. Mbega, Esq., Chairperson. Whereas, the applicant did not enjoy any legal representation from an advocate, on the other hand the respondent, the late Matata Omari'thrbughout the tfiarmaintained'the legal Seivices from Mr. M.L.K. Kannohyele, learned advocate from LAWSAM & Co. Advocates. 7 I PaRe As shown above, from the two stories, it is clear that there were two different cases with two different parties that is. Land Application No. 54 of 2014 (before Hon. Mr. PJ. Makwandi, Chairperson) and Land Application No. 69 of 2014 (before Hon. Mr.

0. Y. Mbega, also Chairperson). Although the applicants were different in those two cases, but the respondent remained the same (the late Matata Omari). As I have noted earlier, in Land Application No. 54 of 2014 the respondent was sued,for, trespassing two acres located at Kihonda - Manyuki, while in Land Application No. 69 of 2014 the respondent was sued for trespassing one acre located at Makazi Mapya at Kihonda area. Even the value of each disputed parcel of land differs from one another; i.e., Tanzanian Shillings Six Million and Tanzanian Shillings Ten Million, respectively. Reverting the proceedings in Land Application No. 69 of 2014 presided over by Hon.

0. Y. Mbega, shows that the matter was scheduled'for hearing on 10^^ November, 2015 but did not proceed, and it was adjourned to another date on 16'*^ December, 2015 for hearing. As the record speaks for itself, from that particular date nothing proceeded In the Court file and no quorum was recorded. That means there is no even,a single testimony of any party. Hence, the case file remained silent until.the time of composition of this judgrnent. Regarding the case file in Land Application No. 69 of 2014, the same has only 6 hand-written papers. There is no reason given whatsoever as,to why the same did not proceed for hearing, and it is unknown What exactly transpired 8 I Page thereafter. For clarity and better understanding, I will reproduce what exactly emerged in the proceedings of the trial tribunal on November, 2015,1 quote: 10/11/2015 Coram: O. Y Mbega-Chairman. Members: 1. Mngazija. 2.... , Applicant: -Present. Respondent: - Present(HaiUi administrator). For the Respondent: Kannonyeie, Advocate. R/A- Ghanai Tribunal: The matter is for hearing. Kannonyeie:.I hereby iost truck of the case as had no communication with my ciienf we pray this matter be heard together(consolidated) by Application No. 54 of2014 before this tribunal. Order: hearing be on 16/12/2015. Signed 10/11/2015" Having highlighted what ernerged in the above mentioned two cases, before this Court, the

appellants have jointly accompanied with their petition of appeal and the original copy of the judgment delivered in Land Application No. 69 of 2014 by R.W. Mmbapdo, Chairperson dated on 11^"^ February, 2022. However, it is noteworthy to understand that, while the proceedings of the trial tribunal are silent in thesq two fjles> on the.:qther;hand, there,is a judgment which shows that,it stemmed from the same case file, indicating that,each, party was heard op rnerits in.that .particular case.. Now the .question that arises in miad is this, how comes 9 I Page that there is a judgment \A/hile there is any proceedings that were recorded and taken down by the trial tribunal? In my considered view, I think that, this doubtful question, escaped the minds of the learned counsels. I say so because, none of them questioned this anomaly via this appeal. Other vital questions are, how the Hon. Chairperson, Mmbando took over the proceedings in Land Application No. 69 of 2014 and vyhich procedure was used to join Waziri Hatibu in Land Application No. 69 of 2014 without the order of the tribunal in those proceedings? Was it proper to proceed with the hearing of a case without a case file and compose a judgment concerning the same case file in a different case file? For the interest of justice, and before responding on the above crucial questions that I have posed herein above, I will explain

further, what transpired in Land Application NO. 54 of 2014. As noted above, this case was presided over by Hon. P.j. Makwandi, Chairperson. It is evident from the records of the trial tribunal that, oh 19^'^ day of January, 2015, Mr. Kannonyele, the Counsel for the respondent at trial, prayed to consolidate the,two case files as hereunder: - "Mr. Kannonyele: there is more cases before Hon. Mbega,Ithus, ask that the same be consolidated and be heard by one chairperson. Tribunal:Prayergranted. Aii cases are consolidated and are heard by one trial chairperson (Hon. Mbega). Mention on 28/01/2015". 10 I P a R e Moreover, the record at the trial tribunal reveals that, on January, 2015, the matter was adjourned and scheduled for mention by Hon. PJ. Makwandi, Chairperson on 17^*^ March, 2015. On day, the matter was further adjourned until April, 2015. From there, Hon. Mbega, Chairperson took over the case and presided over in the same case file. Afterwards, the Hon. Chairperson proceeded to schedule the matter for hearing including, hearing of the preliminary objections (PP's), that vyas;raised earlier on by the Counsel for the/esppo,d,6ht. Upon hearing the PC, the trial tribunal,ended to overrule it for lack of merit. On ll^ April, 2016 the respondent wrote .a letter to the trial tribunal alleging that he had no confidence,;With.tbeHpnv:-C;ha)rperson/;p.Y..Mbega.-According

tothgtecor^^^^^ Mbega- had no,. other option,; rather than, disqualified himself from,the,Gonduct. of the,cases, and. Hpn. P.J. .Makvi/andi, Chairperson too.k over again Land Application No. 54 of„2014. Hpwe.ver, there was no, reasons recorded,If! the case file either from Hon. Mbega,or Hon. M,akwandi explaining the reasons,for recusal from the conduct of the case or even taking over of the case by Hon. Makwandi. , '■ ''^t=is On- fecdfd-that;: it'was Makwandi'who ■proceeSed-vvitli''this determine the preliminary dbjectiOns raised by the Couhse! for fespondeht and the same Were dverruled. Oh 'April,- 2019, Hon. Makwandi adjourned the, matter and scheduled' for hearing ' on '5^'^ June, 2019. However,- It IS apparent On the records that, oh the 5^^: Juhe, 2019 another Chairperson 'different from Hon. Makwandi, (MomjM. KhasIm)took oyerthe,case.(Land; Application.Case No,;p4 of 2014),and proceeded to,pr.esjde over the, same., In th's regard, Hon. [yis.- M. Khasim 11 I P a g e like the previous Hpn^Chaitperson did not.assign.any reason(s) for taking,over.the case file nor Hon. Makwandi registered such reasons for excusing himself from that case. On September, 2019, the Hon. M. Khasim granted the prayers sought by the respondent, Halili Matata and allowed him to file his application to be joined as a party to the suit on behalf of Matata Omari, the deceased. That was on the March,

2020. As garnered from the records, the Order oftrial tribunal was as follows: - "^ORDERS 'The administrator ofestatesis allowed to step in the case on behaif of the deceased Omary Matata as per Order X>(li of the CPC. An amended application with the effect ofchanging nanies be filed". Signed; 11/03/2020". As observed above, the order issued by the trial tribunal did not specifically mention the rule that governs the procedure asserted under the law. However, it is my view that, perhaps the Hon. Chairperson meant to refer to the provision of the law under Order XXII, Rule 4 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, [CAP. 33 R. E, 2019](the CPC) which provides that: ' ■ T'/I) Where'onddf-two or more defendants dies and the ■ •■ ■" right to sue does not survive against the 'surviving . 12 I P a e e defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the court, on an application made In that behalf, shall cause the legal representative ofthe deceased defendant to be made a party and shallproceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to ^ his character as, legal representative of the deceased defendant" Based oii the above cited law, the applicants amended their application and the respondent similarly amended his written statement of defence. According to the records, thereafter

the imatter was scheduled for hearing of the application on 18^'^ August, 2020. However, when the matter was placed before the presiding Hon. Chairperson (Ms. M. Khasim), she noticed that there was a confusion in the case file, This is what emerged in the proceedings of the trial tribunal: , ' ""18/8/2020 ''CotdmrM^ . . , Mempers: l..Mpite. . ,, 2. Mngazija ' • Applicants: ■ Present : ' ■ •' " ■ ■ : , Respondent: ^ Present ^. ■ For Respondent: Mr Alpha Boni'phace, Advocate. R/A: V Chanal MfM7pha-Bddip'hace/'M/ocate: This case Is cbmlngfor hearing, butIam not feeling well. 13 I P a g e Tribunal: This case isfixedfor hearing butthe recordsin itare not dear. They cannot be easiiy understood if you pass through this case fiie. / Recordsshows that the cases were two but they were consoiidated. As per the appiicants, they are suing for their iands but the titie of their appiication forms is bearing/showing them as administrators ofestates oftheir iate farther. I think, rectification is necessary in this case so that the case can be cieariy conducted. ■ Signed. ■ 18/8/2020 Order: An bniended cippiication form be fiied by the appiicahts by2/9/2020"'. Signed. 18/8/2020" It is on the basis of the above orders issued by the trial tribunal, the applicants went back to the drawing table, redrafted, drawn and filed the joint application. On September, 2020 the amended application was

accordingly filed before the trial tribunal. It appears as follows: "jyy THE DISTRICTLAND AND HOUSING TRIBUNAL FOR MOROGORO,ATMOROGORO LAND CASE NO.69 OF2014 mShameda. DIYANGA .....!.. .....1^appucant WAZIRIHA ilBU(an administrator ofthe Estate ofthe Late HATIBU WAZIRI) RESPONDENT VERSUS ' .' r ■ ■ s v' - ■ ■ ■ ^ > ■ ■■ 14 I P a g e * HALILIOMARI(an administrator ofthe estate ofthe LateMATATA OMARY) i;..... RESPONDENT

AMENDED APPLICA TION 1. NA..

2. NA..

3. Location and address of the suit premises/Land: within KIHONDA KWA MANYUKI- klHONDA in Morogdro Municipality.

4. Estimated value ofthe suit property Tshs. 6,000,000/=.

5. NA... 6. (pj. Cause ofActipn/briefstatement offacts constituting the ciaim: (i) That, the applicantowned the disputedlandafter hisiate father ■ „• ga¥P:.hirn:portion_ ofland to own. His iate father,acquired the:.s3id iand since 1970's during the operation ofNGUVU KAZI. "(ii) 'That, in 1981 his iate fathefgave hirh portion ofiand from that time he was used the disputed iand without any interfering butin 2015MATATA OMARY ■ trespassed to the disputed/and and claimed that he is the iegai owner of the disputed iand. (Hi) That,ithe applicaptSecomes the lawfufpwnerpf-the,disputed land after being.appointed--as administrator of his late father Hatibu Waziri. His iate father owned the disputed iand since 1970's and acquired the:said iand,from the iocai government during the operation of NGUVHM/Ia::' V.' ;.-vv (iv) That,■ when hisfather passed away,,the Z":'.applicant was,appointedas an administrator in order to administer that iand but without any fear in 2015 the,iate MATATA OMARY trespassed to that iand and claimed he is the owner ofthedisputedfand'whiief&knowsthatmsthcifaisemfQrmgtiony; . v.--' .V-- ■iSi l.-Pva-.g 6.- 7. Reliefssought. (a) This honourable tribunal may be pleased to declared that the applicant is the lawfulowner ofthe disputed land. (b) NA... (c) NA... : ' When the Amended Land Application was lodged before the trial tribunal by the Applicants on l l'^'^ September,

2020/,the respondent through the legal services of Mr. Alpha Bohiphace/ the learned advocate drew and filed an amended written statement of defence on the 15^"^ April, 2020 in reply to the Land Application filed by the applicants and on 3'"'' August, 2020 the applicants filed their joint rejoinder. From thure,. the case.;.proceeded-for; hearing before-Hon.- Ms. M. Khasim, Chairperson. The records show that, on 16T August, 2021 the trial Chairperson heard the testimonies of the 1^*; Applicant(AWl one Mohamed Ally Diyanga) and on 8',^ November^ 2021 and 2^^ Applicant(AW2 one Waziti Hatibu),. respectively. Thereafter, the matter was, adjourned to another date for hearing on December,v2021. , . ■ i- On 2"^ December, 2021 the matter did not proceed before Hon. MS. Khasihi. Instead, it was placed before Hon. R.W. Mmbando, Chairperson M still no reason(s) was assigned expressing why Hon. Ms. M. Khasim, Chairperson was unable to'proceed with hearing of this case. For ease of reference, the records rdad, I duoter ' 16 1 P a g e "2/12/2021 AKIDI: MWENYEKm-R.W. Mmbando Wajumbe: 1. Mngazija MUOMBAJI: 1. Yupo 2. Yupo WA/MAOMBI: Yupo Boniphace Alpha-Wakili. Karani: V. Chanai Baraza:Shauri hapo awali HHkuwa kwa Mhe. Khasim, laikini kwa sasa Jimehamia kwangu R.W Mmbando kuendelea na usikiHzwaji. Upande wa ipashataka uHshatoa ushahidi wa mashahidi wawiH. Hiyyfpfjitaepdeleapalp^^^^^ ■ ■ .■

,. Signed. After, Ine had recorded as shown above/, the 4-fon. , R.W. Mmbando, Chairperson proceeded 'to,' hear and recorded the testimonies of AW3 (Yurick Mungira), AW4 (Asia Simba Chaaduma) and.the evidence on the respondent side SUl (Halili Omary, SM2 (Ramadhani Ismail Mkundi and SU3 (Halima Omari). At the height of full trial, the Hon. Chairperson dismissed the applicants' applicatibn/dairns for of merits with costs. Giving the reasons, the Chairperson stated'that, the'evidence adduced by the and 2"^ applicants were full of contradictibns and iriconsisteneies because, each of the applicant gave his ■ ■ L.' ■. . i;^ ] p a g e ovyn yersion on .how he acquirecl the said disfputed jand and both ^ a different and a separate parcel of land having different sizes. Disgruntled, the applicant preferred the present appeal. Looking at the parties' pleadings in particular the AMENDED APPLICATION, it is clear that the cause of action indicates that, each of the applicant obtained and or acquired the disputed suit land from a different father. Second, the sizes of the land in dispute iri the amended application was not seated and described. Indeed, the testimonies advanced by the applicants, clearly do not reflect what the parties, pleaded in their amended application and nowhere it was indicated that both applicants jointly owned the sarne. Nevertheless, the reliefs, sought

by-the applicants based on a single averment that the applicant be declared as the lawful owner of the disputed suit land, permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his agentfrom conducting;any activities in the suit premises and costs. ■ Although the trial tribunal ordered that the Applicant's land application be amendrheht; still the Chaifperson(s) contihued to conduct the- hearing of the purported consolidated land Application in the same case file and registered the same as Land Application No. 54-of 2014 till final disposal. As I have indicated eariief, Land Applicatibh No. 69 of 2014 have no proceedings that proceeded to its finality...Again, fhe judgment,stemmed from Land Application No., 69 of .2014, subject to this.appeal does not indicate anywhere that the same is a Consolidated Land Application Ayith land Application;No. 54 of 2014. r. ,• - T'8' I Page Despite of the anomalies highlighted herein above, the impugned judgment (Hon. R.W. Mmbando), clearly shows that there were two different cases that were not supposed to be tried jointly. While this position and the surrounding circumstance remains undisputed by the Counsels for the parties, still the appellants preferred to instant appeal determined to challenge the decision of the trial DLHT;-Considering the. fact that,;,I have tried, andv attempted, as well to ctemon^tratedhe historicaUbackground. of the

matter atyhand^J flndrthat there is np. need.,.to consider the grounds of appeal and the respective submissions advanced;by the Gpunse|S;for the parties for the following reasons.: . dne|-The'p^ tnaf DLHT ih' l^hd i^pplicatibh l^d; 69-'6f-2014 have'no recordb'ahd or evidence of either party'who are'befdfe ide and this Court Two; Since the proceedings in Land Application iNlo. 69 of 2014 was incomplete as pondered herein above, it means that nothing stemmed therein as valid Judgment and Decree that can be challenged or appealed against like what the appdildnfsdiddh-thls-appeal r; vu. Three; As it is apparent from the Court records that though the thai DLHT orderedddh arl'anhiendmeht'Ofthe filed land ApplicatiOh and'the'tWocase fiies'de COri^blidated/but the^ rbcbfds'is silent whether such an' order Was'adhered to by thb trial'DLHTds-thbreis:^h rbdbrds indicates that LandV\pplicatiOn 1Mb. 69 of 2014 and 'Land" Xppfi(^tibh- N of 2014, were consolidated, even the instant purpoit0dpint .petitionrPf ;appeal. lodged in -thls,.Court;;Gn, flarch,; 2022:.js untenableand unmaintainahlevinJay;. ^ ^ :v • c ^ :v; ?V;; .. J.P a g.|;, ' Ail said and'done, this apjDeal has no merits. CbhSe'quehtly, the decision of the triarbiStrict' Tribunal for Mdrogoro, at Morogoro hereby uphold and this appeal dismissed with costs. It is so ordered. DATED at B^OROGGmthis day of October, 2023. A w mim

.fe^UDGE 31/1C3/2023 ?-0 1 P a g e Courts Judgment delivered at my hand and the Seal of the Court in Chamber's this 3± day of October, 2023 in the presence of the and 2'""^ appellants who appeared in persons and unrepresented and in the absence of the respondent. .ly^nana '■M' i ^V^gif6ES5y!F:Y:'REQI,ST.MRL 3l/lW^©23 "M' '; \i . \ "i-. 'r m'C nOy: Court: Right of the parties ,.tQ appalto.the Appeal of Tanzania fully explained. L; B. LyaWDana 'MPMTf'■REGISTRAR S'^^r ^ r; , / |/n 31/10/2023 V-: r-, ■ • - i3- - .--her i,.V-: 3,T;:Ti;cTT:ia 21 I P 3 g e