sophia mohamed juma vs nmb bank plc 2020 tzhclandd 4029 20 september 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND APPEAL N0.172 OF 2021 (From the Decision ofthe District Land and Housing Tribunai of Kinondoni District at Mwananyamaia in Land Appiication No.81 of2020) SOPHIA MOHAMED JUMA APPELLANT VERSUS NMB BANK PLC .....RESPONDENT RULING Date ofLast Order: 30. 08.2022 Date ofRufing: 20.09.2022 MWENEGOHA,3: The appellant approached this Court with the following grounds of appeal 1. That, the learned Chairman erred in law and facts when he failed to realize that the disputed house is a matrimonial home. 2. That, the learned Chairman erred in law and facts when failed to analyze properly the evidence of the appellant which was adduced during the hearing of the Land Application No. 81 of 2021, before the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kinondoni. The appeal was ordered to be disposed by way of written submissions, where Advocate Rose Charles Nyatega appeared for the appellant, while the respondent was represented by Nsanglzyo Zllahulula, learned counsel. However, when I was composing a Judgment for the appeal, I noted that, the appellant has decided to drop two parties who were defendants in the trial tribunal. These are the 2"^ defendant, Nsombo & Co. Limited and 3"^ defendant who is her husband, one Ramadhan Juma Mtunguja. The parties were ordered to address the Court on this issue and they did comply to the Order. The respondent was of the view that the appeal is defective and cannot stand as parties have been changed. She prayed for the appeal to be struck out. The appellant Informed the Court she was not aware that parties were different. After considering their arguments, this Court is of the opinion that the instant appeal is not maintainable. The reasons are clear that, there are parties who must be included in this appeal otherwise the same cannot be properly determined. The basis of this dispute is a mortgage of the suit land which the appeilant has claimed to be a matrimonial home."Tlie one responsible for the said mortgage is her husband, Ramadhan Juma Mtunguja, who was a 3'" defendant at the trial Tribunal together with the 1=^ respondent herein above. Therefore, his absence makes the whole case meaningless. Furthermore, since he was among the parties at the trial tribunal, the appellant cannot choose to drop such a necessary party at this stage. Therefore, and without wasting much of this Court's time, I find this appeal to be incompetent for the reasons stated above. Eventually, the appeal is struck out. No order as to costs. MWENEGOHA OP o JUDGE G O y 20/09/2022 5 o 6Nd