rosebay elton mwakabuli vs huruna mohamed kitelebu 2019 tzhclandd 41 30 september 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND APPLICATION NO. 268 OF 2018 {Arising from the decision o f this Court in LandAppeal No. 14 of 2015 as per His Lordship Dr. Ndika, J) ROSEBAY ELTON MWAKABULI..................................APPLICANT VERSUS HURUNA MOHAMED KITELEBU ......................... RESPONDENT MAIGE, J RULING Before me is an application for certificate that some points of law are involved in the intended appeal. The application is preferred under section 47(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216, R.E., 2002 and is premised on the affidavit of Anna Marealle, learned advocate for the applicant It has been opposed by the counter affidavit of the respondent. My learned sister Justice De-Mello who but for her transfer to the High Dar Es Salaam Registry would have finalized the matter, directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions. The applicant through his counsel complied with the direction. For the reason better known to himself, the respondent did not. I take it that he has weaved his right to be heard in this application. In her written submissions, Miss. Marealle adopted the facts in the affidavit and submits that the affidavit demonstrate one pertinent point of law deserving attention of the Court of Appeal to wit; by placing reliance on hearsay evidence, the trial tribunal violated a pertinent rule of evidence. In the judgment sought to be appealed against, I have observed, the issue of the decision of the trial tribunal being premised on hearsay was considered. The presiding judge having revisited the evidence on the record, ruled out that the evidence relied upon way not hearsay. The applicant, it would seem, is not pleased by the said decision. He thinks that the same was hearsay and therefore inadmissible. I am not the right person to comment on that. It is only the Court of Appeal which may do. In the circumstance, I certify that the application demonstrates one point of law calling upon the attention of the Court of Appeal namely; whether the High Court was right in holding that the evidence of the respondent's two witnesses was not hearsay. In the final result, the application is granted with costs. It is so ordered. JUDGE 30/ 09/2019 Ruling delivered this 30th September 2019 in the presence of Rehema Samwel for the Applicant and I.MAIGE JUDGE 30/ 09/2019