19960912 TZHC Dar es Salaam

... . Iii '.i..Ttil~ HIGII COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SAIAAM (PC) .-CIVIL APFEAL NO. 54 OF 1992 f ( From original. Civil Appeal No-. 27 of 1991 of thi;; D:i.stti-ct Court of Kinondoni District at Kinondoni) ORIGINAL MANZESE ffiI!VIARY COURT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 86 OF 1990 PAUID S• KIHAMPA • • • • • • • o o • _o e • 0 0 0 0 8 • APFELIANT versus FWtNCIS F. MtJOMBEKI 0 • ::> 0 0 • • • • • 0 .. • 0 Q 0 RESroNDENT J U D G M E N T': MWAIKASU, J. This is a second appeal arising from the deci~ion of Manzese Primary Court. within the city of Dar es Salo.run concerning a dfopute over a piece of lnnd-. Before the Primary Court the Respondent one FRANCIS F. M,JOMBEKI claimed recovery of the disputed piece of lo.nd ••hich, h~ alleged he.d earlier been sold to him by the appellant, one PAUID !(.IR4MPA, but later the f"J.id KIHAMPA re-sold it to another perGon one IEMA the Primcry Court found for the nppello.nt. On appeal to the lower a~pellate court, (JTBREA 9 JoMo Esq. SDM), reversed the judgment of the Primary court in favour of the Respondent. Hence the nppello.nt's appeal to this court. Before this court both parties hove been represented, Mr. Kisusi-, ' advocate, appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Ndrurzi, advocate, apPearing for the Respondent. The judgment of the~ lower court has be~n challenged on the following grounds: (a) that the Respondent one Francis Mi-•ombeki hnd no locus standi ·and .therefore there was 110 cause of action, for the reason thot the pm-chnser·of-the_lnnd in dispute wns his wife, one Rose M1t•0inbeki; .>• "I \ / - 2 - (b) that there wns o. fnilure of judice for not involving or joining in the suit one Mr. I.emn. ••ho had purchased the dil=:put,~d piece of lnnd from the o.ppellant; (c) that the learned Senior Dif"t:r.ict Magistrate ho.cl err1;:d in fact Md in law in holding as he did, that Mrs~ Rose Kihampa ,sold the disputed piece of la."ld to Mrs. Rese Mwombeki ,,,ith the approvo.1 of the nppellant for , ·ant of pav•er of attorney, to do so; (d) th::it the learned S<mior District Magistrate errGd in f.:i.ct in assuming thnt the appellnnt ought to have· seen the developments which were supposedly being carried out on the disputed piece of land by the respondent prior to the snle of the said piece of land t o Mr. Le . . ma; (e) that in any event, the learned appellate Senior District Magistrate erred in law in failing to tnll:.e into account the fact thnt the sale of the disputed piece of land by Mrs. Rose Kiham)Xt to Mrs. Rose Mwombeki ,,,as not vo.lid to pass any title becnuse the same had not been registered under the Registration of Documents Ordinance Cap. 117; In ro'guing the appenl the le1·1rned counsel opted for and ,,,ere given the opnortunity to tender Written Submis~ioM. "In his WI'.ittcn Submission counsel for the appellant has contended, inter alio., that the Respondent had no cause of action a8 he 1:-ns not o. party to the contract, citing the co.se of DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE COo vs. SELFRIDGE & CO. (1915) AC. 847, a.s referred to in the book 111.aw of Contract:i by Dr .. Au'tder Singh 3rd Edn. p.63. It has be,m argued thr:it there 1--0.s no · evidence thnt Mrs. Rose Mwombeki had ony valid insrwn(jnt to shOI•' that she had a p01,,er of Attorney given to her by the Respondent, and diether she bought such lo.nd for the benefit of the Respondent, as to empO!·'er the Respondent to make the cln.im as a beneficiary, as was the case in DESMICK v. BESMICK (1966) 3 ALL. liiR.1. It has further been contended for the appellant rel0.ting to the 2nd ground of appeal that the purchnser of the land in dispute, one Lema, was a nece~E3,EE,Y.,.,..Et.1, to the suit, and that adjudicating the suit vithout affordin,T the said Lema an opportunity to be heard amounted to a breach of a fundamental rule of nnturo.l justice, that no man should be condemned unheard. On the third ground it has been argued that there was no evidence of the existence of power of Attorney 1,•hich \-rould have in 101.,,, empowered Mrs. Rose Kihrunp::i. to sell her husband's land. .•.. /3. \ On the fourth ground it has bei:m argued tho.t by holding that the appellant ought to have seen the develoµnent made to the land by the Respondent the SeniO'.r District·Magistrnte hnd inferred the·doctrine of adverse possession, ,,•hich i,,as a gross error. With rer-;pect, thnt hcwever does not nppenr to be the import of the finding of the learned nppellste mngistrnte. For his bbservntion MO.B mo.de in relation to the issue ,!ls to whether or not the 11ppellDnt ,,,as aware➔ of the sale of the disputed piece of lo.nd 1 as mn.de by his wife, one Rose Kihampa, to Mrs, Rose Mvombeki. As regards the 5th ground, it ho.s been contende<:1: for the appellant that in terms of the mandntory requirement under s. 8 (1') of the RegistrntiJn of Documents Ordimnce Co.p 117, since the c:.lleged sale agreement·between Mrs. Rose Kihampa and Mrs. Rose Mwombeki, ,-•as not regfatered under the Registrn.tion of Documents Ordimnce above cited, it ,..,ns of no effect in validly trrinsfering title over the land in dispute,. Thist in the submissi by the learned counsel for the nppellnnt, has been considered to be o. sufficient grbund to dispose of the nppenl. Hence it has b<:en prayed that the·ap'J?eC.l be allow8d. In reply leo.rned counsel for the P.eGpondent hos submitted, inter alir to the effect thot in purchasing the lo.nd in diPpute ns she did, one Mrs. Rose. 1-h·ombeki o.ctod und(.)r the instructions of the RePpondFmt had not been disputed in nny 1-•ay. That being the position, the learned caunsel has argued then, in lmr, either the Re,spohdent,' as principal or Mrs. Rose Mwombeki herseJ_f as agent, or both, could jointly or sel'/'erally in,sti tute the _suit for the ·recovery of the land in diRpute. It is therefore the submission if the learned couns,~l for the Responc!<-mt, thnt ih the circum- stnnces the Respondent hnd locus 1?_tnndi in prosecuting the case os he did. As regD.rds the arguments for the appellant in respect of the 2nd ground it is the reply for the Respondent that it •••as not necessary to joir one Lema ns one of the defendants in suit because he ,.,o.s not a. ~~.t?:!.X.- E.~Zi. that is one 1-.•hose preRence is so es sent i.,l that , ·i thout such party one cannot effectively realize the fruits of the. judgment. The learned ,.counsel has further submitted thnt as the appellant ~,ras the one who had sold the Respondent's land once the Ref>pondent established that the sale by the appellant to Mr. I..ema 1:•o.s null and void because at the tim•J of the sale the Appellant had no title in the land, thnt then uould make the parties revert to the position they occupied im1:1edio.tely before. the s.::i.le by the 0cppellant to ~r. Lemll. 1 with the result that Mr. Lema will hD.ve to vacate the disputed land. It has further been contended for the Respondent thct as Hr. fomc. 1.•-n.s not n party to the so.le agreement between the appellc.nt and the Respond,mt, there hns been no denial of the right to be henrd to Hr. Lema.o 0 0 I. ._/l+. 4 - Turning to the 3rd ground concerning the disputed autho'.dty of one Mrs. Rose Kihompa, to -soll the disputed lo.nd to the Respondent, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Respond0:at. D.8 argued in respect of the "ist ground, tho.t such authority m: :.d not, in la•-·, be· in Writing only, 0 by ...,,ay of p011 1er of o.ttorney ns. conhlided for the Appellant, but the same could be established by evidence written or ornl if there beinv such nuthorit: consent or instructions or such authority could be implied from the conduct of the p:1rties. It hD.s further beert contended that the appellant had not disputed the fact that the land in dispute was sold to the Respondent to get money to build the house of the o.ppell.:int's family, which'then went to establish that thnt vas a fo.mily o.rra.ngemnnt with the nppellant 1 s· full knowledge and approvaL Learned counsel for the Respondent has taken up I the i.ssue further by the Drgument that be_nring in mind the. appellant s allegation-,_ that he came back from Europe_ in 1987, and -saw the unexha.usted improvements made by the Respondent but remained F-ilent for three yeors that was enought circumstantial to sho•· thc,t such development by another person could stand by idle for a period of thre8 to four years, ·while_ seeing such other person making permanent improvements on the land without any protest,· especially ·when the land uprears to be very near as is the I disputed land, to the appellants home, being a distance of about 'ZOO meters only. In the counsel •s submission, such obsf1rvation by the learned apuellate,m~istrate did not hove the effect of implying adverse possession~ as contended for the o.ppell.:mt .. In,reply·tq the submissions in reEpect of the 5th ground it has been submitted inter alia, tho.t been.use the disputed land the Respondent had no legal compulsion to have it registeredo It has furth1:r been submitted, cm the nuthority of s.2 (2) of the I.a.,., of Contrnct Ordinance Cap._433, thnt even if -that·is the reauirement of the law, still non-registration of such sale agreement would not invalidate such sale agreement or contra.ct.. 0n· that learned counsel for the Respondent lm.s also found support in the decided cases of MOHAMEDHAI KHANBHAI vs MTOO Tli.FAKARI (1953) 1 TLR, (R) 433, nt p.434; and JAPHET LENDESHA RAIYA vs· YESAYA MSUYA High Court Arusha, Civil Case No. 37 of 1976, (unreported) , and· demr,nds of principles of· equity as vas held in an English case of WALSH v. U),.SBAHG (1882) 21 Ch.Do9o As to the facts of the case these cnn briefly be stnhd as follrn-rs. The appellant, one PAULO s. KTIW1PA, prior to 1986 and up to sametime 1990, "°'o.s mo.rried to one MRS. RCEE KIHAMPA. The Respondent, one FRANCL3 MWOMBEKI was during the same period al.so married to one MRS ROSE MWO:!v1B"Elll. During the material period th•~ two couples were residents of Kimo.ro. area within the· city of Dor es SalnDI!l. Mrs. Rose Kihampa. and Mrs. Rose Mi--.rombeki have been work mates at Muhimbili Medical Centre. - 3 - On the fourth 'ground it hns been argued thnt by holding thnt the appellant ought to have been the developnent_ made to the land by the• Respol'ldent the Seni<Y.r District Magistr6.te had inferrC::d the·doctrine of o.dverse possession, 1,•hich ,,,as o gross error. With reBpect, that however does not nppear to be the import of the finding of the learned appe1lo.te mngistro.te. For his observation ,,,ns mo.de in relation to the is.sue as to whether or not the nppellruit pas· nvmre of the rnle of the disputed piece of land, as run.de by his wife, one Rose Kihampa., to' Mrs.., Rose M1,,ombekL As regards the 5th ground, it has been contended for the nppellant tho.t in tenns of the mando.tory requirement under s. 8 ( 1) of the Registrnt::_,jn of DocUl!lents Ordin.:mce Cap 117, since the elleged sale agreement between Mrs. Rose Kihrunpa and Mrs. Rose Mwombeki, ,-,as not regfatered under· the Registr:1-cion of Documents Ordimnce above cited, it -..,ns of no effect in· vo.lidly trc..nsfering title over the lnnd in dispute, rl'his, in the submissi·. by the learned counsel for the nppellD11t, has been considered to be n sufficient ground to dispose of the nppenl. Hence it_ has bc:en prayed that the:appenl be allowed. In reply leo.rned counsel for the Req1ondent has submitted, inter alfr to the effect that in purchasing the land ih diPpute D.s she did, one Mrs.· Rose M1,•ombeki o.ctcd under the instructions of the RePpondPnt hnd not been disputed in any 1-•ay. That being the position, the learned caunsel has argued then, in la,._.,, either the Respondent, ac: principal or Virs. Rose Mwombeki herself as agent, or both, could .jointly ar severally in.c:;titute the suit for the recovery of the land in diGputeo It i~ therefore the submission if the learned couns•~l for the Responi:lf':nt I thc.t in the circum- -~--- stances the Resnondent hnd locus struidi in prosecuting the case os he dido .. As regnrds the arguments for the appellant in respect of the 2nd ground it is the reply for the Respondent that it ,,,as not neceEF.ary to joir. one Lema as one of the def endo.nts in suit because he ,,,as not q.. D§_CeSP~ .ffi!:.g-1. that is one uhose presence is so essenti.:1.l that , ·ithout such party one cannot effectively realize the fruits of the judgment. The learned 1 counsel has further submitted thnt as the appellaht vns the one who had sold the Respondent's land once the Respondent established that the sale by the appallo.nt to Mr. Lema v.::i.s null and void because at the time of the sale the Appellant had no title in the land, that then uould make the parties revert to the position they occupied imt:1edintely before the s.:i.le by the o.ppellant to ~r. Lema, with the result that l'A.r. Lema will have to vacate the disputed lnnd. It has further b,~e!:1 contended. for the Respondent thc.t as Mr. J.emc. 1,-o.s not n party to the snle agreement between the appellant and the Respondent, there has ber~n no denial of the right to be heard to Hr. lemo.o Oot..•/4• \ ·/- .,. ' \ . / I' •. - 6 ... n.ppellant 1s i,iife for and 0.'11 behalf of the Re2pondent, it being argued there-• fore thnt the said Mrs. Rose i•h·ombaki did so in her o,-'ll right. Fo;r there is nmple evidence evidence from both the Resrondent o.nd his wife that before the Respondent's wife entered into negotintion •·ith arpellnnt's wife for the purchnse of the dfr,:iuted· fo.rr:i, there ·,-:ns prior underst.~nd1ng a.rid common interest bet,·.reen the Respondent and his \•rHe to go 1nto such venture. I_~ 1 •as, so to speak• a joint interest for the fnmily. As such couplf-, Q.nd 1 •ith such understanding tb..ere cnn be no doubt that •·•hat ·Mrs. Rose :r+-11ombeld did in entering the sr-,le agreement ,,.i th the a:rpellant 's 1-1ife over the dil=:ruted piece of land i ·as cleo.rly on her .o, ·n behalf and on behnif end authority of the Rer::pondent, as her husband. In .the circum- stances, both the Respondent and his 1.-•if e could rightly be to.ken as joint 'v o· ·ners of the disputed piece of lo.nd, or alternatively the Res1')ondent could be .placed in the po'"'ition of princiro.l ancl hi~ , ·ife, in the position of agent. This court doeF not thr-srefore "'ntertnin -my doubt thnt in the circumstance," the Ri::~pondP.nt and hiG , ·if e had joint int<:ireP-ts in the purchased disputed farm, and either of them or both 1-•ere enfitled to sue any perPon who h.:i.ppe11~~ to tr,:,nsgress ..th~ir rights over such land. Ac~ordingly, '"the ·a~gument that the ReRpondent had no locus st~ndi, and therefore no cause of action cannot succeedo That then Pettler-: the 1st ground of nppeala The third grouncl. of apm:al may conveniently be .:i.tten-ded to here. For ,·hat hDcs been said in ref::pect of tlF, _1st ground dor➔ c- equally apply h!f_Te• In thil'l regard the argument for the appellant th.:i.t the ap,~ellant was not a party to the .sale agreement in respect of the land in di.s-pute for the simp).e reason that there was no evidence to shov that his wife one J.'J. • Mrso Rose Kihrunpa had appellant 1 s pO',,•er of attorney to enter· into su'ch sale · agreement ,,.,ith the Respondent 1 s ,.,ife, is untenable. For here, too, there was unrebutted evidence from the ,·ife of the appellant, the said Mrs. Rose . Kihampa, to the effect that it i:as nfter proposing to the appellant th:i.t they had to sell part of their land in order to get some money to enable them complete the construction of their house that the appellant gave h<~r the go-ahead to look for customers, in the course of ,,,hich she found the Respondent's 1-•ife. It is further her evidence that , -hen Rhch agreement ,.,as concluded and the fnrm inspecjl!;ed by the purchaser the appellant also ,-,as present and it is himself i-rho ,.,as given the money_ paid for such farm in the sum of !_sho~..QQ.QL~ Surely all ,.•hat the appellant' 1,: wife did was in accomplishing the couple's joint effort to procure money to complete the construction of their house. There can be no doubt that _the appellant did aprrove .such sa.le agreement over tbe land in di8pute as concluded by his '.··ife, one Mrs. Rose Kiharnpa. . . .,./7. • 7 Even if the shambn. from ,.:•hich the dfrputed piece 1,-ras curved \•!as not. joint of the appellant and his wife 1 there \ras never theless sufficient evidence to establish that the appella.'1t 1 s wife concluded the sal~ agreement as undisputed _agent .of the appellant, so that such sale agreement was binding upon the appellant. It follows therefore that tlP third ground of appeal fails~ As regards the arguments for the appellant in respect of the 2nd ground concerning the non-joi~der of Mr. Lema, all , ·hat can be said here is that though it 1-•as open for the Rei:-ponrkmt to join such per,.on il'.1 the suit in question before the trinl court, the omission to join him cannot vitiate the suit against the appellant, for in so far as the Respondent is concerned, Mr. Lema stood as a mere tref>passer. The per~on ,·ho really at the root of· -..... the problem is the appellant •. Thii:; ground of ap11eal, therefore, must alP.o failo Earlier on an ob:=;ervation has'been made regarding the argument in respect of, the 4th ground of appeal·to the effect that the observation by the learn~d appellate magistrate that the appellant had remained quiet and raised no protest for three to four years, after the Respondent had started making some developments, did not amount to or imply the infer'"'nce of the doctrin0 of adverse possession. Suffice to say therefore that this ground is misconceived. It therefore also fails. The formidable issue is one in respect of the 5th ground. This ground raises an important legal iP"'ue. There are t,.,o ii=:Pues in one. The first .is whether instruments relating to transfer of customary holding of land, or, in other vo'rds, of unregistered land are subject to compulsory registration as provided for under ~• 8 (21_ of the Registration of Documents Ordinance Cap. 117; second, what is tbe effect of non-registration of such documents'? While in his submission counsel for the appellant appears to hold the view that registration of the sale agreement in respect of the disputed piece of land was mandatorw and that non-registration rendered such sale agreement ineffectual in vesting any title or interest in such land, thereby acquiring nothing on the part of the RePpondent, counsel for the RespondPnt appears, on the other to hold the vie,,, that Puch regfrtration i8 not mandatory for an unregistered land; and that on the authority of so2 (2). of the law of contract capo h 33 and the cited ca:::;es not, ·ithstanding such requirement under the Registration of Documents Ordinance, failure to comply 1··ith Buch requir~ment did not render the sale agreement voidr, but the smne could be enfo~ced subject to satisfying such reouirements as may be ordered by the court acl.juelicating the mattero voc,c/80 - 8- Now before turning to consider the relevant pro:visions of the lcr-;r, it is, perhaps, important that for ease of referenc~, such provisions be and are here below quoted in extensoo provides: --.-~ ·-·-- Section 8 (1) (4) of the Registration of Documents Ordinance C,a.p 117, ...... 11 8 - C-1) The registration of the follo•-ring documents if executed or • made after the commencement of this Ordinance . is compulsory -· (d) non-testa111entary documents, including decrees of any couif and awards which purport or operate to c feate, confer, declare limit, assign, transfer or extinguish .any right title or interest, ,.·hether vested or contingent, to in, or over land; 11 Under so9 of ghe said Ordinance it is further provided as follows: 11 §..~9 No document of uhich the registration i.s compulsory she.11 be effectual to pass any land or any interest therein or render such land liable as securitj for the payment or money or be received as evidence of any dealing affecting such le.ind unless and until it has been registeredol2 so2 ...(2) 1 On the other hand, .,._..,. ...... of the Ia-,., of contract.' Cap +33, provio.es.: ~ 11 2 - (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (g) or ( j) of su~S_l:.,cAt.i..op__(1l of this section, where any Written law in force in Tanganyika on the date on i,,hich this Ordinance comes into operation provides that an agreement (h~1soever described) of the kind specified therein, shall be enforceable by action unless or until certain req11ire- ments therein specified are complied with, or certain con- sents are obtained no such agreement shall be void by reason only that it is not enforceable by action under the provisions of that law for want of compliance with any such requirement or of the obtaining of any such consent. 11 In my judgement in the light of the above pro1:7ii=;ions of the law relating to registration of documents, it is evident that such requirement for regi- stration of any document, such as the sale agreement in respect of land as . A . . the one in dispute, is mandatorya And fo:ilure to observe such a requirement renders the Gale agreement in effectual to confer title over or interest in such land. That, ho1••ever, as provided for under s.2 J?-) of the Iaw of contract and also the last phrase of s~9 of the Registration of Documents Ordinance reading: 11 unless and until it has been registered11 , does not render the s~.le agreement voido Rather~ the s€!.le agreement is sir.iply rendere6. in oper~tive, that is to s~y, the unregistered sale agreement cannot be oo• o./9o· ~.,_~,.~:'-,~~·-· ✓- 9 relied upon and accepted by any court to vindicde one's right over the land in question, for so long as the sale agr8ement -rom.ains unregisteredo The sale agreement is thereby rendered no more than an oral agreement of s~le of such land. Consequently, as the law stc'.'.nds, an oral agreement for the conveyance of land, though not void, cannot be enforced by a court of law.· With respect, the contention by counsel for the Respondent that there was no legal obligation to·r8gister the s~le agreement because the lnnd the subject of scle was not on registered lDnd, is not sound in law. For apparently, it is precisely the regietration of documents dealing with interest in lnnd relating to land registered under the land Registrntion Ordinn.nce that is exempted under ~.__8_(2) (K) of the Registr.?ction of Documents Ordinance Capo 147 •. Accepting, as I do, that the sale agreement over the disputed piece of land stn.nds valid but encnse;E_, so to spenk, and the ref ore ·rE:ndered in operative for purposes of vindicating the Respondent's rights over such piece of lnnd for \·1nnt of cor.ipliance 1,1ith the m:md::\tory requirement to have it rE-~gistered, the next question is whether or not this court cmi, at this stage, do anything to render such sale agreement in question enforceable. In his submission learned counsel for the Respondent hasl interalia, '' urged this court to adopt the course to.ken by the judge in the cnse of MOH.t'\.MEDBH:\I KHANBHA! ·vs MTQO Tl\.FAK.i"..RI ( 1953) 1 TLR (R) 433, at p. 434, whereby the judgP. adjourned. the cnsf: to enable a party to seek consent to the disposition of lend. A similar course was tnken in the· case of JAPHET !ENDESHA RAIYA vs YES!',YA M,SUYA, Arusha H/C Civ. C. Noo 37 of ·1976, (unreported)., Now takins the eXOJI1ple of MORlr-~DBHAI Kiii-'\.NBlli'\.I •s case, this was a case of disposition of land by nntives to non-natives, for which, under !3011_ of the I.aw of Property and Conveyancing Ordinance 1923, it was provided that such disposition 11 shall not be oper.:i.tive unless it is in writing and_Epl~ ~untiL~t._ ~ a:p_Er~d _by_ the. Gov.':!'~o (Underscoring supplied). The disposition was made in writing and the so.le agreement was registered under the Registration of Documents Ordinanceo The defendants, how~ver, refused to give up possession. On the facts, the trial judge (AleXD.ndcr, J. ns he then was), found for the defendants, holding thus: 11 Apnrt from any other considerations the case, by reason of section 11 of the L'.:i-w of Property and conveyaning Ordinnnce 1923, the disposition of the lnnd purporting to be made by the indenture WM not operative 011 00000/10. l! ... 10 - And on subsequent appeal to the court of:Appea1 for Eastern Africa the appeal was dismis.sed and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed., Now as regards the prayer of the learned counsel for the Respondent for this· court to allm, the Rer.~ponde;nt to proceed to register the sale agreement at this stage, on the ground that similar opportunity was given in the above cited cases, it is to be noted that in f'~ct, the two cases were before this court, in exercise of its original jurisdiction and the adjournment was so ordered in the course of the proceedings before final determination of the case, to allow the parties concerned comply with the ·fl .. requirements of the law. It certainly cannot be done at thi's appeUate stage .. That should have been done before the trial court .. Unf9rtunately before the trial Primary court the parties were not represented and there- forei as it turned out, none was competent to raise the legal issue that has been raised before this court., Now that before the trial court the Respondent had not yet complied ·with the requirement of the Ia,.,, as to 1 registration of the sale agreement, it cannot be rectified at this stage$ Accordingly this court is of the considered opinion that to the extent the sale agreement in respect of the piece of land in dispute is not in compliance with the requirement of the law as provided for under S~8 J1)J~· of the RegiEtration of Documents OrdinancB Ce.p 117, it remains in operative, and therefore cc>nnot be acted upon by my court to enforce the rights of the Respondent over the disputed piece of lando I therefore alJ.ow this appeal ,.,ith costs, setting aside the judgm,:nt of the lower appellate court. It is, however open for the Respondent to process the registrn.tion of his sale agreement and consider later to pursue his remedy ugninst the appellant. AT DAR ES SAUi.AM Ro MW/1.IKASU DARED 8/12/1995 JUroE Order: This judgment should be notified and :read to the parties by the DR-HC Dar es Sa1anrn Zoneo R. M\vA.IKASU ,JUOOE 12/9/1996 Coram: Mshote, DR/HC Ndyanabo/Kisusi for· the Applicant Ndyanabo for the Respondent cc: Li vn.ngao ~dy~1?2.:., I pray for copy of Judgement .. Order: Mr .. Ndyannbo t<:> be supplied \-,iith copy of Judgement. Sgd. Mshote 'l DR. 12/9/1996 Certified true copy of