rajabu juma mugeta vs buruwan musaki 2021 tzhclandd 718 12 february 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 450 OF 2018 RAJABU 3UMA UBEGETA APPLICANT

VERSUS

BURUWANI MASUKI RESPONDENT m Date ofLast order: 15/01/2021 Date ofRuling: 12/02/2021 •<fX

RULING MANGO,J. Before me is an application for extension of time to file review application in respect of the decision of this court in Land Appeal No. 104 of 2016 which was preferred against the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mkuranga, in Land Appeal No. 03 of 2016, Original, Kisiju Ward Tribunal Land Application No. 03 of 2013. The application is by way of Chamber Summons made under section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap. 89 R. E. 2019], supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant. The respondent was served with the application and he never appeared before this court. On 21=* October 2020 this court ordered the application to proceed ex parte against the respondent. The appiication was argued by way of written submission. According to his affidavit and the submission the appiicant's seeks extension of time to have the decision of this court in Land Appeai No. 104 of 2016 reviewed because he found new evidence that may affect the decision of the court declaring the respondent to be the iawful owner of the suit premises. Although the respondent did not appear, he filed a counter affidavit In which he indicated that, the allegediy hew evidence is not new at all and that the applicant was aware of the decision of Kisiju Primary Court in Criminai Case No.l of 2016. I have gone through Court record and found the eileged new evidence is not

new. The issue was raised by the applicant in Land Appeal No. 104 of 2016 as the second ground of Appeal which reads; "That the tribunal did not take Into account that the respondent was Imprisoned for stealing coconuts from the very farm land attached is a copy of Kisiju Primary Court". The court did not consider findings of Kisiju Primary Court in determining the appeal as it found the respondent's evidence on ownership of the suit iand to be stronger than the appellant. It considered evidence adduced before the trial tribunal and found that the applicant failed to prove ownership over the suit land. It should be noted that the applicant has not estabiished any connection between the iand in dispute and Criminal case No. 1/2016 between Mageni Mohamed Ubegete and Buruani Masudi Abdallah. A thorough reading of the judgement in the criminai case, establishes that both the complainant and the accused had farms in the respective area and it seems the accused 2 harvested coconuts from the farm owned by Mageni Mohamed Ubegete. There is no proof that the farm considered to be the property of Mageni Mohamed Ubegete belongs to Ubegete family as alleged the applicant. In such circumstances, I find no reason to extend time for review based on discovery of new evidence because the alleged new evidence was tabled before this court and the court did not consider the same to have established Ubegete family's ownership over the suit land. Thus, the application is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. -V ov Z D A GO :d o JUD o 12/02/202t