mwita marwa mkami ruling 0001

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (JUDICIARY) THE HIGH COURT (MUSOMA SUB REGISTRY AT MUSOMA) Misc. LAND APPLICATION No. 3591 OF 2025 MWITA MARWA MKAMI @ JOSEPH MWITA MARWA........ APPLICANT -v Versus 1. TARIME TOWN COUNCIL \ 2. THE ATTORNEY GENERALC...................................... RESPONDENTS RULING 12.03.2025 & 12.03.2025 Mtulya, J.: The applicant in the instant application, Mr. Mwita Marwa Mkami @ Joseph Mwita Marwa, alleges that on 28th January 2024, Tarime Town Council (the first respondent) land officials had trespassed, grabbed and planted eight (8) beacons in his land intending to level it and construct secondary schools without abiding with the laws of the land. The land is located at Romori Street within Nkende Ward in Tarime District of Mara Region (the disputed land) and measured at 410 meters and 160 meters in the south and 170 meters in the north neighboring Msoba Mwita Wambura, Remang'weina River and Magasi Chacha. The applicant alleges further that he had acquired the disputed land through allocation done 1991 by Nkende Village Council of Tarime District in Mara Region and has been occupying and using the disputed land without any contests since the acquisition in 1991. It is from the alleged first respondent's action of trespassing and grabbing of the disputed land which prompted dual actions of the applicant, namely: first, issuing statutory notice i of ninety (90) days to sue the first the respondent (the notice) and join the Attorney General (the second respondent) as a necessary party under section 6 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act [Cap. 5 R.E. 2022] (the Act); and second, lodging the present application seeking an order of this court to restrain the respondent's activities pending determination of the intended land dispute to be filed in this court after expiry of the ninety (90) days. In the present application, the applicant prays for three (3) orders, that: first, this court to issue an order for maintenance of status quo and restrain the respondent from taking possession of the disputed land; second, costs of the application; finally, any other orders or reliefs this court may deem fit to grant. Today, morning the parties were summoned in this court to register relevant materials for and against the application. The applicant on his side had hired Mr. Daud Mahemba, learned counsel to argue the application for him, whereas the respondents have marshalled Ms. Rebecca John Magige and Mr. Elton Bishanga Mutta, learned State Attorneys. According to Mr. Mahemba, the application is a straight forward matter that does not need lengthy contests. In his opinion, the first respondent intends to displace and dispossess the applicant's ownership in land and residential house located at the disputed land without abiding with the laws of the land, whereas the applicant is only seeking an order of this court to restrain the respondents from taking-over the disputed land and maintain 2 status quo, pending maturity of the ninety (90) days statutory notice to sue the respondents. The submission was readily supported by the respondents' learned State Attorneys arguing that there is no need to dispute the application while there are few days for the notice to mature in ninety (90) days. I have perused the record of this application and found that the applicant had prepared the notice on 5th February 2025 and served the respondents on 7th February 2025, which will obviously expire on 8th May 2025 by a simple calculation without inviting a rocket science. The record shows further that the applicant is only praying for Mareva Injunction to restrain the respondents or any other person acting on behalf of the first respondent to displace and deprive the applicant's ownership of the disputed land until when the notice expires to let filing of a fresh land suit. The record and course taken by learned minds in this application shows that there in an appreciation of new enactment in section 3(A) (1) & 3(B)(2) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E. 2022] (the Civil Code) on efficient and effectiveness of resolving civil disputes aimed at reducing costs and time of this court and the parties, which this court encourages. Where parties have noted a real dispute between them, in the circumstances like the present one, it is reasonable and suitable to hear the parties on merit so as to identify the rightful owner of the disputed land via land disputes resolution procedures. This court has a bundle of precedents in support of the move like the instant one (see: Land 3 Masters Hotel Limited v. Bunda Town Council & Another, Misc. Civil Application No. 20332 of 2024 and Abdallah Shabani Gonje v. Musoma Municipal Council & Two Others, Misc. Land Application No. 2795 of 2025). Therefore, granting a prayer, like the present one, is obvious practice in this jurisdiction and this court will not hesitate to follow the course. In the end, I am moved to grant the application and hereby order the respondents or any other person acting in the authority of the respondents, to restrain themselves from causing any act that will affect the disputed land or any other materials attached to the land, until when the notice expires. I do so without any order to costs as Ms. Rebecca John Magige and Mr. Elton Bishanga Mutta had cherished the enactment of section 66 of the Advocates Act [Cap. 341 R.E. 2019] and section 3B (2) of the Civil Code. Therefore, each party shall bear its costs. F.H. Mtiilya Judge 12.03.2025 Court: This Killing^ was delivered in Chambers under the Seal of this court in the presence of the applicant's learned counsel, Mr. Daud Mahemba and in the presence of the respondents' learned State Attorneys, Ms. Rebecca John Magige and Mr. Elton Bishanga Mutta. ——— F.H. Mtulya Judge 12.03.2025 4