saitoti lukumai vs juma lossini 2014 tzhclandd 12 11 july 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) * AT TANGA MISCELLANEOUS LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2012 (from the Decision of the District land and Housing Tribunal of Korogwe District at Korogwe) SAITOTI LUKUMAI ......................................................APPELLANT '< !> VERSUS JUMA LOSSINI ...?............................... ...................... .RESPONDENT JUDGMENT H. KALOMBOLA, J . This is a second appeal. The dispute relates to a piece of land now possessed by one Juma Lossin and eight others. The appellant lost in the Ward Tribunal. He unsuccessfully appealed to the District Land and Housing Tribunal. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. He has now appealed to this Court on the following grounds; 1. That the Trial Tribunal Chairman erred in law and fact by pronouncing ruling and order from the appeal instead of judgment and Decree. 2. That the procee_dings of the Trial Tribunal were impropriety and inconsistency, consequently led to confusion. 3. That the Trial Tribunal Chairman erred in law and facts by quashing the decision and proceedings of Tribunal without regarding and determining the^appellant's compatible and imperative grounds of appeal, hence condemned the appellant unheard. 4.1 hat the 1 rial Iribunal Chairman grossly misdirected himseif in upholding the decision of the Ward Tribunal by granting ownership of the suit land to the respondent herein, while at the same time had r. < ^ n quashed the decision and proceedings of the Ward Tribunal ’ 5. That the trial tribunal erred in law and on fact in failing to evaluate the evidences on .records, -assess their credibility so as to made its own finding on the contested facts in issue hence leaning the contested material facts-and law unheard. In arguing these grounds of appeal Mr. Phillemon Advocate for the appellant contended that the District Land and Housing Tribunal faulted to pronounce Ruling and Order instead of Judgment and Decree according to order XXXIX rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Code. As regard to the second ground he submitted that the appellant were not given opportunity to explain about their grounds of appeal, hence he. found that justice was not done on the part of the appellant led to the tribunal to pronounce ruling and decree instead of judgment. He added that there was confusion on the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal which nullified the proceedings of the Ward Tribunal and at the same time order the respondent to continue with ownership. On the fourth ground of appeal it is contended that it was wrong to pronounce the respondent at lawful owner while the proceedings of the Ward Tribunal was declared nullity. £ As regard to the fifth ground of appeal Mr. Philjemon contended that it was wrong for District Land and Housing Tribunal for not evaluating *f r - * • 4 evidence and exhibits before it. As it-toncentrated on uncontested issues and leave out contested issues. Hence it reached a wrong decision. He prays for the appeal be allowed* with costs. In reply respondent who appeared in person submitted that the annextures accompanying the grounds of appeal are just mere documents as they have not been stamped nor certified as true copy of the original. He added that all that have been submitted by the appellant's counsel in support of his ground of appeal have no substance, hence-prays for this court to dismiss this appeal with costs. In rejoinder, Mr. Phillemon advocate for the appellant reiterates what has been submitted in chief. From the record and submissions before me, I am unable to find any reason for faulting the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal. My reason for the same in that the Chairman was right to pronounce Ruling instead of Judgment because he did not entertain the appeal before him on merit, because he discovered that there were irregularities and illegality on the decision of Ward Tribunal where it entertained the matter before it as an appeal hs against the procedure and law. Section 9 of the Land Disputes Courts Act Cap.216 R.E.2002 states that 'Where the parties to the dispute before the Village Land * 1 * . Council are not satisfied with the decision o f the council the dispute in question shall be referred .to the Ward Tribunal in accordance with section 62 of the- Village Land Act." In the light of the above provision. It is clear that Ward Tribunal have no appellate jurisdiction, it only receive reference from the Village Council. In the circumstance, therefore the Chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal could not proceed'to determine the matter before him on merit since the same originated from defective procedure of the law. Therefore nullifying the decision of the lower Tribunal was correct. In consequence, I dismiss all the grounds of appeal, respectively, as they are baseless. Appeal dismissed with costs. IUI H. KALOMBOLA, JUDGE. 11/ 07/2014