specioza kokushubira vs tanzania women bank 3 others 2022 tzhclandd 243 21 april 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION)

AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LAND CASE APPLICATION NO.553 OF 2021 {Arising from the Order of High Court of Tanzania at Dar Es Salaam in Land Appeal No. 119 of2020 dated 13/ 07/2021, by Hon. Maghimbi J) SPECIOZA KOKUNSHUBIRA........................................ APPLICANT

VERSUS TANZANIA WOMEN BANK......................................................... 1stRESPONDEN REVOCATUS MWOMBEKI BARI KI............................................. 2ndRESPONDEN SEMINABA ROBERT KATO......................................................... 3rdRESPONDEN TULVIN INVESTMENT CO LTD.................................................... 4thRESPONDEN

RULING Date of Last Order: 31.03.2022 Date of Ruling: 21. 04.2022 T, N, MWENEGOHA, J The applicant is seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, against the whole decision of this court, given by Maghimbi J in Land Appeal No. 119 of 2020. The case has its roots from Land Application No. 212 of 2015, heard at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Temeke District. The application was made under section 47(2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R.E 2019. The same was accompanied by the affidavit of the applicant, Specioza Kokunshubira. The application i was heard orally and exparte against the 3rd respondent, while the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondent had no objection against the application. Arguing for the application, the applicant gave three reasons for her application to be allowed. Firstly, she insisted that, there was a new issue during the determination of the appeal. The said issue was not part of the original case at the district tribunal. This fact is seen at page 4 of the judgment of Hon. Maghimbi J. Secondly, the High court erred in law to bless the tribunal judgment which considered a photocopy document for evidence which is against the law. The third ground was that, the High Court erred in law to analyse the evidence of the appellant which proved that it was matrimonial house and that it was mortgaged without consent of the applicant. I have

considered the arguments of the applicant as well as the affidavit and counter affidavit from the 1st and 4th respondent. The question for determination is whether the application has merit or not. It is settled that, an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal will be allowed upon the following considerations; (i) the court ought to consider the rights of parties against who the decision of court which the intended appeal is sought, (ii) satisfy itself whether the said decision is an appealable one and (iii) there must be valid grounds as opposed to chance of success that the party wishes to appeal {see David Naburi as the Administrator of the estate of the late Maeda Naburi Vs Stephen Sangu, Misc. Land Application No. 960 of 2017, High Court of Tanzania, Land Division, Dar Es Salaam, unreported}. In my opinion, the applicant has met all these three requirements. Firstly, the impugned judgment of Maghimbi J in the land Appeal Case No 119 of 2 2020 is appealable, and therefore the applicant needs to be given another forum to argue her case. This is her constitutional right of which the court cannot curtail. Above all the applicant has valid reasons for her intended appeal; therefore, it is just for her to refer her case to the appelate forum for the same reasons as stated in her submissions. As pointed out earlier herein above, this application was not contested by the respondents, hence I find no reasons to deny the applicant the reliefs sought. In the end, the leave is hereby granted without costs. 3