Seph Rajabu Hamisi vs

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA MOROGORO SUB-REGISTRY AT MOROGORO LAND APPEAL No 17746 OF 2024 (Appeal from the Ruling of Kilosa Land and Housing Tribunal at Kilosa in Misceiianeous Land Application No 92 of 2022) BETWEEN SEPH RAJABU HAMISI APPELLANT VERSUS RASHID SALEHE MADOHOLE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MRUMA 3, This appeal originates from Land Dispute No 17 of 2020 of the Rudewa Ward Tribunal between the Respondent herein Rashid Salehe Madohole and one Salumu Gadagada. In that dispute the Ward tribunal declared the Respondent Rashid Salehe Madohole as the rightful owner of a piece of land measuring five acres. Salumu Gada Gada was dissatisfied with that decision and he appealed to the District Land and Housing Tribunal in Land Appeal Case No. 4 of 2021. The said appeal was struck out on 30.8. 2022 for want of prosecution. Salum Gada Gada instituted in District Land and Housing Tribunal Miscellaneous Land Application No 92 of 2022 seeking to restore Land Appeai No 4 of 2021 was also dismissed. This prompted the Respondent herein to file Miscellaneous Land Application No 79 of 2022 for execution of the decree of the Ward Tribunal in Land Case No 17 of 2020. The application was granted and an execution order was passed on August 2023. On 4^'^ October, 2023 the present Appellant Seph Rajab Hamis filed in this court Land Appeal No 114 of 2023 challenging two decisions in one appeal namely: 1. Ward Tribunal's decision in Land Dispute Case No. 17 of Rashid Salehe Madohole Versus Salum Gada Gada and; 2. Miscellaneous Land Application for Execution No. 79 of 2022 between the present Respondent Rashid Salehe Madohole Versus Salum Gada Gada. Land Appeal No 144 of 2023 was transferred to the Resident Magistrate's Court for hearing by her Worship Asha Wazir a Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. At the registry of the Resident Magistrates' court the appeal was re-registered as Extended Jurisdiction Land Appeal No 52 of 2023. The learned Resident Magistrate struck out the appeal for want of locus standi to prosecute the appeal on the part of the present Appellant. The Appellant was not amused with that decision and he has now brought this appeal challenging the decision in Land Application No 92 of 2022 on the following grounds of appeal. 1. That, the trial tribunal erred in law and facts for deciding that the applicant fail to warrant good reasons for restoration of the main Land Application based on strong evidence to wit the funeral process led to failure to appear in trial suit compared to that of the respondent's one. 2. That, the trial tribunal erred in law and in fact by failure to evaluate and analyse properly reasons adduced in affidavit on records to wit the demise of the late Salum Gadagada led to fall to appear In hearing. 3. That, the trial tribunal erred In law and facts for failure to take records to some of the reasons adduced by the appellant which support the Appellant evidence regarding his application to wit process of petition until grant of letter of administration. The appellant prayed this court to quash the ruling and orders of the District tribunal assess the evidence and grant the applicant for extension of time to file application for restoration of land application no 92 of 2022. As stated In the course of this ruling following the filing of High Court Land Appeal No 144 of 2023 the records of this matter was transferred to the Resident Magistrates' Court for hearing of the Appeal by honourable Asha Wazir a Resident Magistrate with Extended Jurisdiction. At the Resident Magistrates' Court the appeal was re-reglstered as Extended Jurisdiction Land Appeal No 52 of 2023 and It was conclusively determined by that court. In terms of Rule 13 (1) of the Judicature and Application of Laws (Transfer and Management of Cases Assigned to Magistrates with Extended Jurisdiction), Rules, 2023 an application arising from matters transferred to a magistrate, whether filed when the matter transferred Is pending or after Its determination shall be filed before the High Court, but In terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 13 of the said Rules any consequential proceeding though Instituted In the High Court registry must be transferred to a court of Resident Magistrate to be assigned and determined by a magistrate with extended jurisdiction. A court or Magistrate with extended jurisdiction Is a court or magistrate who has been granted the authority to hear cases that would normally be heard by the High Court. Once the High Court orders a case to be transferred to a magistrate with extended jurisdiction (which must occur before any plea or preliminary hearing is conducted), registration of that case moves from the High Court registry to the registry of the Resident Magistrates' court and there is no law which permits the record to be returned to the High court for any purpose and application which may arise from cases which are before a Magistrate with extended jurisdiction though are filed in the high court, consequently they have to be transferred to the Resident Magistrates' court to heard by a magistrate with extended jurisdiction. Decision of that court is appealable to the Court of Appeal and not to the High court. Thus, although it was proper to file this appeal in the High court but after being filed it ought to have been transferred and assigned to a magistrate with extended jurisdiction and not to a judge as it was done in this case. Secondly and for purpose of avoiding costs and time wastage to the parties and this court, even if we assume that this appeal was in a proper registry of the court, the record would suggest that the decision of the District Tribunal in Miscellaneous Land Application No 92 of 2023 was handed down on 27^^ March 2023 and this appeal was instituted in June 2024, a period of over 15 months after delivery of the impugned ruling. This was well beyond the prescribed period and there was no extension of time granted by any court. That said, this appeal is dismissed. I make no orders as to cost A.R. MRUMA OF O C JUDGE -y. 45, > X 1. 12. 2024 V"