65

IN THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA JUDICIARY THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MBEYA SUB - REGISTRY AT MBEYA LAND APPEAL NO. 7484 OF 2024 (Originating from the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Rungwe at Tukuyu, Application No. 36 of 2012) PAUL MWANKUSYE (Administrator of the Estate of the late Kibila Ndagile) …………………….....................APPELLANT VERSUS NIKUTUSYA KAGWEMA.…..…………………….….1STRESPONDENT ALLY AMOSI…………………………………………...2ND RESPONDENT EMILY ANDEKISYE……………….…………………3RD RESPONDENT RICHARD MWASIGANILE…………………………4TH RESPONDENT EMMANUEL JOHN…………………………………...5TH RESPONDENT GASPER MWAFULA…………………………………6TH RESPONDENT PHILEMON K. NDAGILE…………………………...7TH RESPONDENT MAGELETA BHANDEKILE KIBILA……………….8TH RESPONDENT JANETH S. MWANKUSYE………………………….9TH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Date: 20 August 2024 & 26 September 2024 SINDA, J.: 1 The appellant in this appeal at the District Court and Housing Tribunal for Rungwe at Tukuyu (the DLHT) filed Land Application No. 36 of 2012 claiming to be the lawfully owner of four acres of land located at Kisumba Ndembela Tukuyu (the Disputed Land). The Disputed Land was sold by the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. The seventh, eighth and ninth respondents also claimed that they are the beneficiaries of the Disputed Land so they sold it lawfully. At the end of hearing the DLHT found that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents were lawful purchasers and owner of the Disputed Land. Dissatisfied with the decision, appellant filed this appeal with the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the DLHT erred in law and fact for failure to observe that the appellant had instituted the suit in the capacity of legal representative of the estate of the late Kibila Ndagile. 2. That the DLHT erred in law and fact for failure to hold that the appellant as a legal representative of the deceased estates was the only person vested with powers over the deceased assets. 3. That the DLHT erred in law and fact for holding that 7th ,8th and 9th respondents were lawful owner of the disputed property while the 2 appellant was already appointed as administrator of the estates to administrator of the assets of the deceased. 4. That the DLHT erred in law and fact for holding that 1st to 6th respondents were lawful purchasers. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr. August Mramba, learned counsel and proceeded ex-parte against the respondents. The matter proceeded by way of written submission. In relation to ground number one the appellant submitted that on 21 November 2012, the appellant instituted Land Application No. 36 of 2012 as the administrator of the estate of the late Kibila Ndagile in the DLHT challenging the acts by the respondents who had trespassed onto the land of the late Kibila Ndagile which was administered by the appellant as the legally appointed administrator. He further submitted that however, on 28 April of 201, the DLHT delivered the judgement in favour of the respondents. He added that in the said judgement it is shown that the applicant was Paul Mwankusye in error instead of Paul Mwankusye (as the Administrator of the Estate of the late Kibila Ndagile). These are two different persons in the eyes of law. 3 The appellant advocate submitted grounds number two, three and four together that the DLHT chairman erred in holding that the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents were lawfully owner of the Disputed Land and had powers to dispose it to first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents while the appellant was already appointed as the administrator of the estate of the late Libila Ndagile (the Deceased). He cited section 100 and 101 of the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap. 352 R.E 2002. He also referred to the case of Joseph Shumbusho vs Mary Grace Tigerwa and 2 Others, TZCAT 1803 (CAT). He was of the view that the DLHT chairman erred to hold that Magreth B. Kibila (DW1) and Janeth Mbuja (DW2) had power to sell the Deceased estate without prior consent of the appellant who was the administrator of the Deceased estate. He added that the seventh, eighth and ninth respondents had no power to sale the Disputed Land to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. He prayed appeal to be allowed. I have gone through court records, grounds of appeal and submission made by the appellant. 4 I find that before deliberation on the grounds of appeal, there is a need to address on the issue whether Rodrick Mwankusye (PW1) had locus standi to stand on behalf and represent the appellant at the DLHT. It is observed that at page 1 of the proceedings of the DLHT (the Proceedings), the Chairman ordered that the applicant be represented by Mr. Rodrick Mwankusye. The Chairman did not explain or give reasons on the appointment of PW1 to stand on behalf and represent the appellant in Land Application No. 36 of 2012. There are also no any instrument giving powers to PW1 to stand on behalf and represent the appellant in land Application No. 36 of 2012. I will reproduce the Proceedings in page 1 as follows: PROCEEDINGS 12/12/2012 Coram: A. J Majengo – Chairman Members: 1. Mrs. Amury 2. Mr. Kaponela C/C: Mbembela Respondents: 7th to 9th - Absent Others - Present ORDER 1. The applicant will be represented by Rodrick Mwankusye. 2. The respondents who are absent to be informed about this matter through summons. 3. Mention on 28/12/2012 A.J. MAJENGO CHAIRMAN 12/12/2012 5 In my opinion, the fact that there is no any instrument giving the power to PW1 to stand on behalf and represent the appellant. This is clearly a fundamental breach and it occasioned miscarriage of justice and rendered PW1 to have no locus standi to stand on behalf or present the appellant in Land Application No. 36 of 2012. It is clear that PW1 stood as the applicant in Land Application No. 36 of 2012 without having any authorization to do so from the appellant. PW1 at page 5 of the Proceedings stated that the appellant had the right to claim the Disputed Land because he was the administrator of the estate of the Deceased. PW1 further stated that there was a clan meeting on 21 April 2001 to appoint the administrator of the estate. He added that the letters of administration were issued on 2 October 2001. However, I also note that the said letters of administration were not tendered and admitted in court as required by the law. As such the proceeding are null and void. The law on locus standi has been defined in the case of Lujuna Shubi Balonzi versus Registered Trustees of Chama cha Mapinduzi [1996] TLR, 203, 208 as: - "A Principle governed by common law whereby in order to maintain proceedings successfully, a plaintiff or an applicant must show not only that 6 the court has power to determine the issue but also that he is entitled to bring the matter before the court". As such, PW1 had no locus standi to represent the appellant in the Land Application No. 36 of 2012 at the DLHT. Accordingly, I hereby allow the appeal and quash the Proceedings of the DLHT and set aside the judgment and orders of the DLHT. I order that the matter be remitted to the DLHT to start a fresh before another Chairman. Right to appeal is explained. DATED at MBEYA on this 26 day of September 2024. A. A. SINDA JUDGE 7