natasha danstan mpangala another vs alimoni simoni chaula another 2023 tzhc 19983 9 august 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (IRINGA SUB REGISTRY) AT IRINGA MISC LAND APPLICATION NO. 04 OF 2023 (Original Application No. 65 of2021 of District Land and Housing Tribunal ofIringa before Hon. A.J. Majengo, Chairperson) NATASHA DANSTAN MPANGALA .... ................ . 1st APPLICANT TULIKISA JAQULINE GOODLUCK KIPPA @ TULIKISA JAQULINE KIPIGAPASI....... 2nd APPLICANT VERSUS ALIMONI SIMONI CHAU LA (Under povver~l...... ...... . 1st RESPONDENT of attorney of GOODLUCK KIPIGAPASI) f ALICY LEONARD KIPIGAPASI ......................... 2nd RESPONDENT RULING 2/’ July & 1'' August, 2023 I.C. MUGETA, J: On 31/8/2022, the trial tribunal decided that the 1st respondent is the owner of a house at Mkimbizi. The suit involved the respondents. The 1st appellant testified as a witness for the defence side. The 2nd applicant is a daughter of the 1st applicant and the 1st respondent. They had jointly bought the dispute house from the 2nd respondent. However, the dispute over that property was between the respondents in exclusion of the applicants. The applicants allege that the trial tribunal determined the Page 1 of 3 dispute without involving them as necessary parties. They are now applying for extension of time to file a revision to challenge the decision of the trial tribunal's decision on account of not being party to the suit, hence denied the right to be heard. Besides the fact that the 1st applicant was a witness at the trial tribunal, I agree with the argument that she has interest in the property, therefore, she was not heard and the only way to be heard is by application for revision in Jacquiline Ntuyabaliwe Mengi & Others v Abdiel Reginald Mengi & 5 Others, Civil Application No. 332/01 of 2021, Court of Appeal - Dar es Salaam (unreported) (page 9) it was held that it is common ground that a person does not become a party to a proceeding merely because he testified in the matter. The same apply to the 2nd applicant. She neither testified in court nor was a party to the case. I allow the application without costs. The intended revision application to be filed within 30 days from the date of this order. I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 9/8/2023 Page 2 of 3 Court: Ruling delivered In chambers in the presence of Jally Mongo, learned advocate for both applicants who are absent, Lazaro Hukumu, learned advocate for the 1st respondent who is absent and in the absence of the 2nd respondent. Sgd. I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 9/8/2023 Page 3 of 3