19980519 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA . (.DAR ES SALAAM DlSTRICT REGISTRY) .. . - - 'AT DAR ES SALAAM b.c •· orvrL APPEAL No. 9 OF 19~ T~GA CHINESE RESTAURANT LIMITED . APPELL/iliT · Versus 'l'J\NGA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND 6 O'fifERS RESPONDENT .RULING r• CHIPETA, J.: This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. The application has been made under section 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1979 and Rule 43 of the Court . ~: of Appeal Rules, 1979. During the hearing of this application, Mr. Mselem, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that this application should be granted because the intended appeal will raise important questions of law. He submitted that the first question of law was whether the offer or right of occupancy (Exhibit P.2) was lawfully granted by a , competent authority., The second question of law, he submitted, we.s whether an offer or right of occupancy granted by an incompetent authority can be revoked by the Presidento The third question of law, · he said, was whether Exhibit P .2 was admissible in evidence, it having not been registered under the Land Registration Oridnance. Finally, he· submitted that thi.s court. did not give due weight to the question as to whether the acceptance was within time.· Mr•. Marandu, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted ,that the President had ·delegated his po\•;ers of land allocation to District Land Officers, and that land allocation committees were unknown to law. 2 On the question of ad,~issibility. of Exhibit P.2, learned counsel .submitted that as it was a mere offer and not a certificate of·a right of occupancy, it was not' subject to registration· ~nder the Land Registration Ordinanc·e. • On the question of acceptance, learned counsel submitted that there was evidence that the acceptance was made within the required perio~; and that in any event time is deemed to have been extended up to theti1ne the Government received the necessary .feee. On those grounds, Mr. Marandu subinittec! that the applicant had failed to satisfy the c·ourt that there are sufficient grounds for him to go to the Court of Appeal. It.is common knowledge, I think, that land allocRtion committees have beensetupin almost all districts in the countryo The question is whether those committees have been lawfully set up nnd can lawfully alloca.te pieces of la11.d. To my mind~ that is an important questio17- of law. It is al.so, in my view, an important question of law whether or not an offer such as Exhibit P.2 is a registrable document under the Land Registration Ordinance, and whether lack of ,its registrati·on renders such a document.inadmissible in evidence. The third question of law, I think, is whether an offer or certificate of title granted by an incompetent authority can be revoked by the President. On these groun,;3.s, I am of the view that the applicant has satisfied this court that thare are sufficient grounds for him to go to the Court of Appeal. I accordingly hereby grant this applicationo Costs shall be in the cause. JUDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers this, 19.th day of May, 1998. . /\·> ,/{',,, / rK<:i ( t . :-· 'l B. Do CHIPETA .!-1-VPGE Mr·. ,1~selem: for Applicant ·Resp·ondent: Absent.