Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

Raiden Ruling

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The applicant established sufficient grounds for the order sought, and in the absence of opposition, the court granted the application for the respondent to show cause regarding the certificate of title.

Court disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Order for summons to issue to respondent to show cause why the certificate of title with CT No. 033014/35 Plot No. 31 Block O Unguja Street, Mwanza should not be produced to the Registrar and necessary order made therein.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Raiden Yakobo Kinage @ Zakayo Athanas Raimond

Applicant Counsel: Emmanuel John

Magweiga Chacha Magere

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Land Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether an order should issue requiring the respondent to produce the certificate of title to the Registrar

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant, through affidavit and counsel's submission, sought an order for the respondent to show cause why the certificate of title should not be produced to the Registrar, relying on Section 37(2) of the Land Registration Act.
Respondent
The respondent did not appear and did not present any argument.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 37(2) of the Land Registration Act, Cap. 334 R.E 2019

    Court may order production of certificate of title under Section 37(2) of the Land Registration Act when justified by the circumstances.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The applicant established sufficient grounds for the order sought, and in the absence of opposition, the court granted the application for the respondent to show cause regarding the certificate of title.

Court disposition

Application granted

  • Order for summons to issue to respondent to show cause why the certificate of title with CT No. 033014/35 Plot No. 31 Block O Unguja Street, Mwanza should not be produced to the Registrar and necessary order made therein.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 5 August 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 5 August 2024

Raiden Ruling

THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA

AT MWANZA MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 4076 OF 2024 (Arising from Land Case No. 23 of 2011) RAIDEN YAKOBO KINAGE@ ZAKAYO ATHANAS RAIMOND ………………….……………...……..……….….. APPLICANT

VERSUS MAGWEIGA CHACHA MAGERE …..………………………..……….. RESPONDENT

RULING 16th July & 5th August, 2024 CHUMA, J. This matter has a chequered history. It spans from the applicant’s decision, taken on 14th April, 2008, when he decided to buy a house from one Ziada Hussein Mtebwa. Pursuant thereto, the applicant rimmed and faced several legal hurdles regarding the ownership of that house. He took his battle to court in land case no. 23 of 2011 which in the end the court ordered as per their settlement deed. This decision was not the end as it triggered a multitude of other matters that have lasted for more than a decade. One of the matters is Misc. Land Application No. 26 of 2020 and others to the Registrar of Title. The application is preferred under Section 37(2) of the Land Registration Act, Cap. 334 R.E 2019. Supporting the application is an affidavit of Raiden Yakobo Kinage @ Zakayo Athanas Raimond, the 1 applicant himself, the applicant has given a sequence of events and setting out grounds and reasons on which the application is sought for the following substantive orders: 1. That, an order for summons being issued to respondent to show cause why the certificate of title with CT No. 033014/35 Plot No. 31 Block O Unguja Street, Mwanza should not be produced to the Registrar and necessary order made therein.

2. Any other (s) relief the court may deem fit and proper to grant.

3. Cost be provided. At the hearing of the application, representing the applicant was Mr. Emmanuel John, learned counsel while the respondent on whom service was effected, entered a non-appearance. This necessitated ordering that the matter proceeds ex-parte. In his iconic submission, the applicant’s advocate reiterated what was stated in the affidavit. He further argued by requesting this court to allow the requested order as per the chamber summons preferred under Section 37(2) of the Land Registration Act. He prayed this application be granted without cost. Having heard the submission of Mr. Emmanuel John advocate for the applicant and my perusal of the applicant's affidavit, I found merit in his submission and I proceed allowing the sought order in item number one being the main reason for this application. The application is then granted without cost. 2 It is so ordered. DATED at MWANZA this 5th day of August 2024. W. M. CHUMA JUDGE. 3 The ruling entered in the presence of Mr. Emmanuel John, the applicant’s counsel and in the absence of the respondent, this 5th day of August, 2024. W. M. CHUMA

JUDGE 4

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Land Registration Act, Cap. 334 R.E 2019

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.