LAND APPEAL NO 25630 OF 2024 SCANNED

n IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM. LAND APPEAL NO 25630 OF 2024 (Originating from the Decision the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Ubungo in Land Application Alo. 176 of2022) BETWEEN NATHANAEL ROMAN KIURE........................... APPELLANT AND ERICK YONA KAYUMBO....................................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last order: 05.12.2024 Date ofRuling: 13.12.2024 T, N, MWENEGOHA, J The appellant being aggrieved by the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal at Ubungo in Land Application No. 176 of 2022 before Hon. IM Bigambo, appealed to this Court on the following grounds: - 1. That, the Tribunal erred In law and facts by dismissing the applicant's claim solely on the basis of discrepancy in signatures on the two contracts which relates to the sale of land in dispute, without conducting a thorough investigation into the authenticity of the disputed signatures, including the possibility of expert verification or comparing respondent i signature appearing on other documents such as the respondent written statement of defense. 2. That, the Tribunal erred in law and facts by placing undue reliance on the respondent's police loss report/ which was insufficient to prove ownership or the legitimacy of the respondent's claim, while ignoring the lack of any substantial evidence to refute the applicant's allegation of trespass. 3. That, the Tribunal erred in law and facts by failing to require the respondent to produce clear and convincing evidence to substantiate his defense, thus violating the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim. 4. That, the Tribunal erred in law and facts by dismissing the applicant's claim despite the respondent's failure to provide credible evidence to challenge the existence or validity of the agreed-upon boundaries at the time of the land sale. 5. That, the Tribunal erred in law and facts by relying solely on one of the two contract dated April 17,2016, and failing to consider both contracts executed on that date, which include two separate but related agreements concerning two plots of land in the same area, as well as subsequent contract dated 22 April,2016, despite the respondent's admission of his signatures in both contracts, thereby failing to take into account all relevant documents that could have provided a complete and accurate understanding of the applicant's claim and of the terms of the sale. 2 6. That, the Tribunal erred in law and facts by failing to properly evaluate the evidence on the records properly especially the two contracts of the sale of land executed by the parties, which could have clarified the parties' intentions regarding the part boundaries and the terms of the land sale, and its decision was therefore based on Incomplete and selective evidence 7. That, the Tribunal erred in law by rendering a decision that caused substantial injustice to the petitioner. Parties prayed and were granted to be heard through written submissions. However, as I was reviewing the records for the purpose of composing a Judgment for this Appeal, I noted an Issue which goes to the root of the case itself, as filed at the Trial Tribunal. That the subject matter was not properly described as per the requirement of the law. The size and boundaries of the suit land were not stated. Parties were asked to address the same through written submission. The appellant complied to the prayers. His submissions are well considered. In the Application No. 176 of 2022 at the Ubungo District Land and Housing Tribunal, the appellant herein who was also'applicant thereof did not describe the boundaries of the subject matter. At Paragraph 2 of the said Application, it Is stated. "Eneo fenye mgogoro ni eneo la makazi Ufflopo Mtaa wa Mji Mpya, Kata ya Saranga, Wi/aya ya Ubungo Mkoa wa Dar es salaam lenye ukubwa wa mita 2.7." 3 I Further to that, at paragraph 6 of the Application, the applicant proceeded explaining cause of action where it is stated at Paragraph 6 (a) (I): "Kwamba mwombaji ni mmiliki wa kiwanja chenye ukubwa wa mita 28.7 urefu na upana mital7.5kilichopo mtaa wa mjimpya. Kata ya Saranga, WHaya ya Ubungo, Mkoa wa Dar es salaam." Such information was all the Tribunal had in the Application to determine the said dispute. Certainly, this is short of what is required by the law. Such requirement is reflected through Order VII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, [CAP. 33 R.E. 2019] which provides; " Where the subject matter of the suit Is Immovable property, . the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identity it..". [Emphasized] As per the cited provision above, it is mandatory for the Application to contain a properly described subject. The reason behind such requirements is so as to "sufficiently identify and distinguish the suit property from other properties"; as elaborated in the case of Fereji Said Fereji vs. Juma Jaluma General Supplies Ltd and Another, Land Case No 86 of 2020 (Tanzlii). This requirement was also reiterated by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Lupembe Village Government Ikolo Ward Kyela District & another vs. Bethelehamu Mwandafwa & others, Civil Appeal No. 377 of 2020, Court of Appeal of Tanzania (Unreported). 4 It is with no doubt any land dispute has to include a proper description of the suit land in question. A proper identification of disputed land will ensure just decision of the Court and avoid unnecessary conflicts. The Application at the Ubungo Tribunal did not properly describe the disputed property, such was a crucial point considering the nature of dispute between the parties in that Application. Consequently, the Application was incompetent and should not have proceeded with such anomalies. Referring to the highlighted discussion above, such an Application cannot stand as it is incompetent. Therefore, it goes to the legality of the proceedings of the Tribunal, its Orders and subsequential its Decision. In the event and basing on the afore-going reasons, I use my powers given under section 43 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216, R.E 2019 and proceed to revise and nullify the whole proceedings of the Trial Tribunal, vide Land Application No. 176 of 2022, quash its Decision and aside its Orders. Parties are restored to their original position. Any party who wishes may instate a fresh case. No Order as to costs. JUDGE 13/12/2024 5