20160627 TZHC Dodoma
The proceedings were vitiated because assessors gave their opinions together, contrary to Regulation 19(2), requiring separate written opinions. This procedural irregularity necessitated nullification and retrial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20160627 TZHC Dodoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Salome Mgana; Respondent: Mary E. Meena (as Administratrix of the estate of Nicolaus Ngowi, deceased)
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 27 June 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Land Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- proceedings nullified, retrial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Procedure for Assessors' Opinions, Nullification of Proceedings, Retrial Order
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Salome Mgana
Appellant
Mary E. Meena (as Administratrix of the estate of Nicolaus Ngowi, deceased)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred by receiving assessors' opinions together contrary to Regulation 19(2) of the Land Disputes Courts (District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations 2003
Ratio Decidendi
The proceedings were vitiated because assessors gave their opinions together, contrary to Regulation 19(2), requiring separate written opinions. This procedural irregularity necessitated nullification and retrial.
Court Disposition
proceedings nullified, retrial ordered
Orders
- Case to be tried afresh in accordance with the law by a different chairman and different set of assessors
- It is ordered accordingly
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
. ... . I . ·••· -1_ 1···: .. < . " : •• ~ r •.•• _\""~. .\ti-N•~. ( . I ·. \ r)' ' :1 .· ' .. '·. IN THE.·~IGH COURT OFT~N-ZAN~~- • .· . . . AT DODOMA . ' : ,,, :: . .,, ·.,_ . . •.·, . {From the.Decis/Ofl Ofthe Distfict'L4n!t and HobiJng/[ii/:Jun;roiSingida . Districl-iit!>,1ngida Landicase No. 5ilgf 70,12): .. in 1 . . .·_ .·_,_, ··:··. •:·,·.:··. -.:-.. · . L<·:_·_:·. '·.<·,., :1°-:. _;::;_ ; -S.ALO-M E. MGANA .:. .. --~e: ••• . -~-~*-· . . . - · .. ~-~. •• ..:~·.\i~ .=~.-.-. ~-;. ~·~:~ •.•. -~ii-~ ■• ■ ■-~-. ~:~-.~:~--~.t-~ . . . . ' . -:, · · .·_. : .., -~~~-•-•·: .·;-.·APP,ELLANT ·.. :, . ... __ ~ __ '') . ,: , VERSUS.· as ··an Admi~istr~~triX.: . , ., ·.· • ' •• I I· .. - -MARY E... ~•:•1EEr{A (Sui.sig ··:of the ·tate NICriOLA·us··NGOV/I,:deceased) . . - . .. . . :l. ·_ ... - . - ..•·.:~:.~~~-::~~ , .. RESPONDENT · .. _):. . : . . . t ·: . i' . . . ·.·:·_.. ·.·:·.::I:··.. . .·' · ROLING ··I· ·'· .. .. ' •.: 27/6/2016 . I. . [. ' I ·• .I . Vvhen · this,: . ·:appeal ,.·was ·called' . .· . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . l~r hea~1_n·g,:/Mr.i :oickerl:s learned .. ·.. . : . : .·•: i .-:, :· .· ... . advocat~ halcirig·bri_~f·fqr :Mr. KicJurnage;-k:arned.advoca:~~:.fr)( the appellant ..·. . . . . .·.. ·: ·, ::·.. : :: ''... . : :_ ··: : . i . : ·. ::· ., .;, . ·; ; .. raised -cme legaL:point that th,e.·djstrict··~rlbunal- ,erred::tq.:~ec~ive,.assessors opinion giV~n togeth~r ih· :cbntraventiorl: I 6f HegUl~tio~ .19: (.2) of the Land • • •· • •• •• •.;' • • .. Disputes Co'urts. _[Th~ :District· Land. a_pd .. Housifig·. j-ri,.~dna.'.ll Regulations 2003, GN 174 of 2003: which_ vic:iated· '-t~e j~dg~:i,n;L·': :He .·prayed the . . . , . . .... I .. ·. . : .; .. ·•. . , .· ,. . . proceedings to b¢ n_ul!ified and order of _retria.l ofJh_~·:case ~¢- issued. Mr . 1 . .· : .. ·. ·. ;-··. '••:··. . Malimi learned' advocate f~)r the -respon;dent·cqhc'qrred')N\th:·the:foregoing submissions .. ·1 . . ·. I· The issue to resolve -here is whet~er the pr~llniinary point of law has merit. Upon pe'rusal ofthe court reco.rd I fourid ·_th~tthe Jwo ·•assessors . j. . . 1 ; , . '"" ... ·.: to . "'l I who sat with the .. .chairman of . the ·:district .. .- ·triburtaL : 'determin~ ,,. . . . . . . the case ;· . . gave their opiniori commulativelyon·.29/S/2012 wh~n :tite~/ s:ign~d the same together. .Thisis contrary-.tothelaw tinder _regulatio'rr t9 (?)-cited above • . . . : .. • -· -• i" • •' '. •·• ·. which says; · . . .. . . ... . ... . . . ·. : ·... i . . ·.·. . ' : :. ..;· .. · . . ': :... ·.. ': .':,; . . Not,;yithstandi!Jg sub-regulation .(t):· (he cf1airint3!i} ·:s1a11, before ·. 'making h.is}udgment:-r-eqUlte> every·jisel~br;p;esgnt at the . •' . . . .. . .: . -~ . . -. . .. . . t . . : '. .. . . .. . . ·conclusion ·or hearing_:-to giv.e·_his bplnio.f?\ii·· w.f.!t1ng . -: and the . . . ·.- .. , . . ... -:, · ·. assesst:ir~ay·give his.opi~ionin Kiswahi/L'·'?'.' · Therefore; : . :if the . la~ . ... . requires·. every- . ~ssessor·J~f.give . . . ·-· . .. . hi$ _opinion in .: • • •·. • .· •,•• • ' . • ••, I,•• • ,• •, •. '•,' ; . • · , -. . r·• • •. .' '• •. ' .. writing, giving: opinion:toge_ther·as·it ~as. done ih,thjs·cc1se y./as contrary to .. law arid as rightly a;(Jued bYthe <:buns.~, for tll.e. l)a/ti·es same Vitiated the ,·proceedings.. Thus, through :·this ~ourt's reViSiOff)J.OWer~ und~r· section 43 (1} (b) . of the Land . [)ispu.tes . . .. .- Courti.Ac:t. . . [Cc3-p.· . ...2.{6.. : J{.E_ . ·., ·. . ::20·02] those . . . -: :· ••' . ;'., .· ,··· ·-- . -:· .· For -the .interest- ·. . . of justice.. this . . cas_e::is . ' ordetecfto<;be· ;' .. -·. ·,. =.·· ·. tded. afresh in . .. · •. ·accordance with- the law · by ·different,· chalrm~n >9_nd . dl,fferent ·set of . '. assessors. .· i . I I. . . l. It is ordered.accordingly . . . .. . . . . ·.·. ~KO JUDGE-, •, .. · : . 27/6/2016: f I . I I .. I. . . 1. . 2 •· .,I .• ( · Delivered .in court. today . . . . in . . the absence .. .of oarties but in the presence of . ,• ·. Messrs 'Dickens for .Mr.. Kidurriage Advocate.· and .. Mt;. -Mali mi learned .· Advocates for Appellant and Respondent respectively. Mr. Nyembe court clerk present. C""-_J}f . . ·. . M.A.~A~KO JUDGE 27/6/2016 3