LAND APPEAL NO 16335 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL NO. 16335 OF 2024 {Arising from Land Application No. 584/2019 at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kinondoni at Mwanyamaia dated 11th December, 2023 issued by Hon. R.L. Chenya- Chairman) NEEMA SHIGELA......................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS GEORGE MARWA MASWE.....................................1st RESPONDENT HARUNA ALLY MSAGULA (Also known as) MATENGANYA ALLY MSAGULA).......................... 2nd RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 15. 10. 2024 Date ofJudgment: 17.10. 2024 T.N, MWENEGOHA, J: Neema Shigela, the appellant herein, approached this Court being aggrieved by the Decision of District Land and Housing Tribunal of Kinondoni at Mwananyamala in Land Application no 584 of 2019 delivered before Hon. Chenya. However, before hearing the Appeal on merit, this Court raised a matter suo motto on the competence of the Appeal. The issue at hand being status of parties included in the Appeal are different from those contained in the Judgment. In the Appeal at hand, the parties are Neema Shigela versus i George Marwa Maswe and Haruna Ally Msagula (also known as Matenganya Ally Msagula) However, at the tribunal the 2nd respondent was sued as an administrator of the estate of Hyana Abdallah Mliandi. Parties were informed about this anomaly and were asked to address the Court on the issue raised, of which they did. This Court has taken the submission in consideration, however the same will not be produced herein. Having heard the appellant, I have confirmed that the Appeal is indeed incompetent for containing different parties from those present at the Tribunal. As expressed above at the Tribunal the 2nd respondent was appearing as representative of administrator of the estate of Hyana Abdallah Mliandi. However, at the Appeal, 2nd respondent has been impleaded personally. The importance of citing parties in litigation cannot be overemphasized. As expressed in other cases with similar problem the issue of names of parties to the case is key for identification purpose among others hence they cannot be changed as decided in CRDB Bank PLC {Formerly CRDB (1996)} versus George Mathew Kilindu, Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam(unreported). The names appearing in the former case should be the same as those to be involved in the intended Appeal. Changing names of the parties who were involved in a trial in any manner creates a new case which is distinct from the previous one. It is therefore, obvious that, the Appeal at hand is not the same with the Decree appealed against. This is the position, settled in a number of authorities, including the case of Salim Amour Diwan versus The Vice Chancellor Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science 2 and Technology and Another, Civil Application No. 116/01 of 2021, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam (unreported). Parties in the proceedings should at any given time appear as they did in the previous proceedings unless there is a reason for not observing the same and only with the leave of the Court. For these reasons, I proceed to struck out the Appeal. No Order as to costs. - ,t.n. MvviiNEGOHA JUDGE ■ ■ 17/10/2024 3