Banne

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT PAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL NO.11454 OF 2024 (Arising from Land Application No.258 of2019, of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for liaia) SELEMAN SAID BANNE................................................ APPELLANT VERSUS JOSEPH PETER DAUDI....................................... 1st RESPONDENT NMB BANK PLC.......................... 2nd RESPONDENT RULING Date ofLast 0rder:30.07.2024 Date ofJudgments1.07.2024 T.N. MWENEGOHA, J: This Appeal originates from the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Ilala District, herein after called the Trial Tribunal. It consists of eight grounds. However, I will not be listing the said grounds, due to the reasons clearly stipulated below. When I was composing the Judgment for this case, I came to realization that what was before the Trial Tribunal, based on the pleadings, was not a land dispute, rather a contractual dispute. Parties were notified of the issue and Ordered to address the Court. They complied with the Order and argued the issue orally. This Court has considered their submissions, although the same will not be reproduce in this Ruling. i Indeed, in deciding whether a matter is a land matter or not, we usually look at the facts stated in the pleadings and the relief sought. This rule was stated in Exim Bank (T) Limited versus Agro Impex (T) Limited and Two Others, Land Appeal No. 29 of 2008, where the Court had this to say;- Two matters have to be looked upon before deciding whether the court is clothed with jurisdiction. One you took at the pleaded facts that may constitute a cause of action. Two, you look at the reliefs claimed and see as to whether the court has power to grant them and whether they correlate with the cause ofaction Unfortunately, if we look carefully at the Application, filed by the 1st respondent herein above (Joseph Peter Daudi), at the Trial Tribunal, especially at paragraph 7 which give the facts constituting the cause of action and paragraph 9, containing the reliefs, we will find that, none of them touched an issue of land. That is to say, it is apparent on the face of this case that, the trial Chairperson entertained a dispute which he has no jurisdiction over it. This makes his Decision as far as Land Application No. 258 of 2019 is concerned, to be null and void. The dispute between the parties does not concern any ownership or interest over the land see Charles Rick Mulaki versus William Jackson Magero, HC Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2017, High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza (unreported). It is on the Sale Agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. Although the said agreement is on the immovable property, the breach of it as stated by the applicant at the Trial Tribunal on paragraph 9(a), does not in itself 2 constitute a land dispute. Therefore, the Trial Tribunal was wrong to entertain the dispute as a land matter All what was done by it is null and void. Consequently, in the event, I use my given under section 43 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216, R.E 2019 and proceed to revise and nullify the whole proceedings of the Trial Tribunal, vide Land Application No. 258 of 2019, quash its Decision and aside its Orders. No Order as to costs. 31/07/2024 3