shida kalinga vs rafaela luwumba 2016 tzhc 2211 28 april 2016

shida kalinga vs rafaela luwumba 2016 tzhc 2211 28 april 2016

The appellate tribunal erred by raising and deciding on a boundary dispute issue not raised by the parties and without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. This rendered its decision void. In the circumstances, a visit to the locus in quo was necessary if the tribunal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
shida kalinga vs rafaela luwumba 2016 tzhc 2211 28 april 2016
Parties
Appellant: Shida Kalinga; Respondent: Rafaela Luwumba
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Land Case Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Right to Be Heard, Locus in Quo, Jurisdiction of Tribunals
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Natural Justice Right to Be Heard Locus in Quo Jurisdiction of Tribunals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shida Kalinga

Appellant

Rafaela Luwumba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Land Case Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From District Land and Housing Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate tribunal erred by raising and deciding on a boundary dispute issue not raised by the parties and without giving them an opportunity to be heard
  2. 2 Whether failure to conduct a visit to the locus in quo was a fatal irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate tribunal erred by raising and deciding on a boundary dispute issue not raised by the parties and without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. This rendered its decision void. In the circumstances, a visit to the locus in quo was necessary if the tribunal considered boundary central to the dispute.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal set aside
  • Decision of the Ward Tribunal upheld