salome mgana vs mary e meena 2016 tzhc 2324 27 june 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2013 (From the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Singida District at Singida in Land Case No. 51 of 2012) SALOME MGANA ................................................... APPELLANT VERSUS MARY E. MELfoA (Suing as an Administratrix of the late NICHOLAUS NGOWI, deceased)............... RESPONDENT RULING 27/6/2016 I KWARIKO, .1. When this appeal was called for hearing Mr. Dickens learned advocate holding brief for Mr. Kidumage learned advocate for the appellant raised one legal point that the district tribunal erred to receive assessors opinion given together in contravention of Regulation 19 (2) of the Land Disputes Courts [The District Land and Housing Tribunal] Regulations 2003, GN 174 of 2003 which viciated the judgment. He prayed the proceedings to be nullified and order of retrial of the case be issued. Mr. Malimi learned advocate for the respondent concurred with the foregoing submissions. The issue to resolve here is whether the preliminary point of law has merit. Upon perusal of the court record I found that the two assessors A/ho sat with the chairman of the district tribunal to determine the case 3ave their opinion commulatively on 29/5/2012 when they signed the same :ogether. This is contrary to the law under regulation 19 (2) cited above which says; Notwithstanding sub-regulation (1) the chairman shah\ before making his judgment\ require every assessor present at the conclusion of hearing to give his opinion in writing and the assessor may give his opinion in Kiswahih Therefore, if the law requires every assessor to give his opinion in writing, giving opinion together as it was done in this case was contrary to law and as rightly argued by the counsel for the parties same vitiated the proceedings. Thus, through this court's revision power^ under section 43 (1) (b) of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap. 216 R.E. 2002] those proceedings are declared null and are hereby quashed. For the interest of justice this case is ordered to be tried afresh in accordance with the law by different chairman and different set of assessors. It is ordered accordingly. 27/6/2016 Delivered in court today in the absence of parties but in the presence of Messrs Dickens for Mr. Kidumage Advocate and Mr. Malimi learned Advocates for Appellant and Respondent respectively. Mr. Nyembe court clerk present. 27/6/2016