nulu ligalwike vs selemani saidi matar 2000 tzhc 27 2 august 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAR ES SALAAY: DISTRICT REGISTRY AT PAR EC SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO* 13 OF 1997 (From Original Application Ho.430 of 1992 of Regional Housing Tribunal and from Housing Appeals Tribunal No.31 of 1996) NULU LIGA1VTKE * *... .......... APPELLANT VERSUS 1* SPLEP/PII oAIDI MATAR J RESPONDENTS 2. HALFANT NAS30R0 I JUDGMENT BUBESHI. J : This appeal has been filed by the appellants after being dissatisfied with the decision of the Housing Appeals Tribunal which had reversed the findings of the Regional Housing Tribunal, The appellants were being represented by IV. Lukwaro, learned counsel while Mr. Maftaha, learned counsel appeared for uhe respondent. Mr* Lukwaro filed four grounds* *'hese are that; — the Appeals Tribunal erred on law and fact to reduce the standard rent set by the Regional Housing Tribunal and making its own assessment an4 thereby ignoring the valuation report the Appeals Tribunal erred on the law in setting tne effective date as be in*? the date of the judgement of the Regional tribunal instead of the date of the valuation report the Appeals Tribunal erred on the law indirecting that TShs.4ld,000/= should be reunded to the respondent where part of it has already been deducted by way of rent. the Appeal Tribunal erred to grant costs to the respondents. 2 Gn 18/6/1996, the Vice Chairman of the Regional Housing Tribunal had ordered that the present appellants pay rent amounting to TShg.40,300/= p.m, effective date 1/4/92 for the property situate at Wp.794, Mahunca Street, Tandika, Dare es Salaam. This assessment was based on the valuation report dated March, 1992 - which report stated that the replacement cost of the properly was TShs i 3,420,000/ - with annual rent out 14% ie, TShs»4001 000/= . The appellants were to deduct costs incurred in renovation on aj-peal, the Appeals Tribunal set aside the standard rent of TShs*40,000/= and fixed the same at TS h s .25,000/= pm* Further the Appeals Tribunal ordered the respondent to refuno the appellants TShs.413,000/= incurred as construction costs; and that the effective date was ordered to be 20/1/95, the date the tribunal delivered its judgement. Mr. Lukwaro for the app eJ lant submitted that the. Appeals Tribunal erred to depart from the findings of the RH Tribunal without assigning any reasons. He added that as the valuation Report was acceptea the RHT, and the respondents did not challenge it, then was errenous on the part of the Appeals Tribunal not to g-o along with the findings of the RH Tribunal on the issue of standard rent. On the effective date of the new standard rent, Mr. i'ukwaro submitted that if the respondents had not raid rent since January, 1992 and valueation done m March, 1992 then it was only fair that the respondents pay the standard rent from the date of the valuation reporti He stated that the judgment of the RH Tribunal was delivered on 24/12/96 - a difference of four years, then the api'ellant, is entitled, to the fair rent that was assessed from March, 1992. On the refund of T3hs..4l8,000/= Mr. Lukwaro submitted that as the a pellant had stated that all the money had been used for construction purposes, the respondents were not entitled to the refund ordered. As to costs, M r 4 Lukwaro submitted that the respondents were not entitled to costs. On the strength of the submissions made* Mr. Lukwaro prayed for their appeal to be allowed with, costs 4 Mr. Maftaha for the respondents submitted, that the decision of the Appeals Tribunal was proper in that each case heel to 00 q e c b . o n its .-wn merits, he added that the Tribunal was not bound to follow the valuation Report. According to Mr. Maftaha, the Appeal Tribunal gqve reasons why it fixed tne rent at TShs*25,000 pm intead of TShsi49,0G0 pm. As to the award of costs4 Mr. Maftaha submitted that costs are normally awarded to the winner unless the court decide otherwise. He prayed for the appeal to be dismissed*. 1 have onsidered the oral arguments put forward by counsel for either side. Did the Appeals Tribunal o;ive any reasons why it decided to depart from the findings of the trial Tribunal? I think yes. The RHT had assessed the standard rent to be Tsh s .40,000 p.m which figure was obtained from the valuation rexort. The findings of the valuation report are not binding on the Tribunal. The rate of TShs.40,000 was the valuers maximum and negotiable rent. Indeed if this was the maximum and negotiable, was the riHT bound, to stand o y it? I think not. If it was the maximum, the Appeals Tribunal acted correctly to set it aside ana fix standard rent at TShs.25,000 pm. Asto the effective date, the Appeal Tribunal was of the opinion that the new rent start to operate from the date of the judgment and not on the date of the valuation report* On this 1 entirely agree with the Appeals Tribunal decision, as the new standard rent cannot operate retrospectively4 The new standard rent it to be effective from 20/12/95, the date the trial Housing Tribunal delivered its judgment. 4 On the refund of TShs.410,000 being claimed by the respondents. The fflT had ordered the appellant to refund the respondents unless this amount can be defrayed from monthly rents, if the respondents are still occupying the premises. ‘.Whether such an amount had been used for construction costs, surely Who benefitted. I, it the landlady of the’tenants? I think it is the appellant. If that be so the decision of the AHT regarding this refund is in my view fair and. I would uphold it. As to cost ordered by the Appeals tribunal, the responc,.nts ar^ entitled to costs as they won on appeal. I see nothing wrong with that order. In the upshot I would disiriss the appellants appeal with costs too. i •X ' ■ ^ f ' Akif) Delivered before G< BUBESHI Mr. Lukwarc for JUDGE Appellant and in 0 ,r . , 2 / 8/2000 absence of Respondent