NA TZHC Arusha4

1 I IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) • AT ARUSHA. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2015 ( C/f High Court of Tanzania at Arusha Land Appeal No.44 of 2014; Original Arusha District Land and Housing Tribunal Application No.229 of 2007) I PARMENA WARIMAO NGOERA ................................ ~ ..... APPLICANT VERSUS I 1. MACKMILLAN ERASTO 2. WILSON METAMEI 3. ELIREHEMA NANYARO ............................... RESPONDENTS RULING MAGHIMBtl This application for leave to appeal to the court of appeal is brought under • I the provisions of Section 47(1) of the Land Disputes Court Act, Cap 216 R.E 2002. The leave sought is to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of this Court in Land Appeal No. 44 of 2014 dated 08/05/2015 the ' same originating from the Arusha District Land and Housing Tribunal I Application No. 229 of 2007. The application was supported by an affidavit of the applicant dated 20/05/2015. 1 ' i Before I proceed to determine the merits of this application, I have noted that the application was made under the provisions of Section 47(1) of the I Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 only. The Section provides: 1 '. I Any person who is aggrieved by. the decision of the High Court {Land Division) in the exercise of its original, revisional or appellate jurisdiction, may with the leave from the High Court {Land Division) appeal to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; 1979.(Emphasis supplied) The applicant was therefore duty bound to make the said application in accordance with and by citing the proper provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act in relation to application for leave to ·appeal to the Court of Appeal. The relevant Section 5(1) (c) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act No. 15 of 1979, Cap. 141 R.E 2002 to be read together with Rule 45(a) of the Court of appeal Rules, 2009 is indispensable to such an application. I need not be delayed in this aspect.1 As held in many cases of this Court and the Court of Appeal of Tanza·nia; it is now settled law that wrong citation of a provision of any law or rule under which the application is made renders the application incompetent.See for instance, AloyceMselle v The Consolidated Holding Corporation,Civil Application No. 11 of 2002,. andNaibuKatibuMkuu (CCM) v Mohamed Ibrahim Versi& Son,Civil Application No. 3 of 2003 (both unreported). Non-citation of the proper provisions of the law has the same effect of rendering an application incompetent before the Court. For this reason, this application, not having cited the proper provision of the law, is incompetent and is hereby struck out with no order as to costs. I Application Struck Out. 2