20140926 TZHC Iringa

I I ...... RESPONDENTS . I I I I 10/6/2014 & 26/9/2014 I I JUDGE ENT I I MADAM SHANGALI, J. .. .I Before Isakalilo Ward Tribmjl.al Land Case lo. 17 /2012 the .I I -appellant THE REGISTERED TRWSTEES I OF MUSLIM I · COUNCIL ·.- ~· · OF TANZANIA (BAKWATA) sued the respondents SALEHE ARON MmMWA -and OTHERS claimin~ for a. ..piece-Jland - - ~- - I ~ .,- - measuring. . . . ,-.- -.:· . . "'. . I 1 I .1 . - . . deliberated irifavour of the respondents . . :. ... ':. .. .t •_:,;, '. , ' ·~ ~ . Dissati~fied ·with that decision, the appellant filed an appeal to the. ".Ir~nga District Land and Holising Tribunal, to wit Land ~ppeal ~o. 71 ·of 2012. Before the hearing of the appeal the ., . , .. . ,-- · respondents raised a preliminary objection based on two points .. : 1''·• . ~ of}aw namely, One that the appeal was time barred and two that the person who signed the petition of appeal. is incompetent to represent the appellant who is the .Registered Trustees of the Muslim Council of Tanzania. In the hearing. of the preliminary objection, the first point of objection was u,pheld and the appeal was dismissed with cost for being filed ·out of time. $till disgruntled with that decision, the appellant has filed this appeal based on four grounds of appeal, of which. all . ~ circumvent to two main complaints namely, whether the Hon. Chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred both in law and in fact by declaring that the appeal was time barred without computing limitation peri9d from the date the appellant received the copy of judgement and decree and two, whether -the Hon. Chairman erred both in law and fact for not considering the · . fact that the trial Ward Tribunal had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2 >> .·::;,'>_·. !' :tr . :~{.~-·-.. -_ j'.:.:-,;_.,';- ;,i~!~ ·;'J. 'rl; : _: ., • ,J '. · 1 . i ;, ~ ;, "i • L~.:_ ;._: . ~-- --•----::.;,c-,.;.,-- ·->----~ > ~'-- .. ·- - - ._.,,,,..,..,_-~--- - :..: ~~-:: .. /.-;-: ._:•,·:-,-'...---r "._,_.;_,-:,/.:.':, ...'.,'~"'-,::- ---·-··•·c··-· ~, ,_ - _In · this --appeal_, :the: appellanf . ir.3:s ·· repr"esertted- . by.: -Mr·. · ·- ·· · _· l ri: ·._ . ..Kibamba,·> 'rearn:ecV. ),,advci,cate:· ~-; .. . :" '.~hi~e: ..the ->~'.espo~:d~nts ·. -were:·':--/· \· :·-: ': .· } . . ' . -: t .I . . . ' . , I . •. - , . represented by Mr._ Onesmo Francis, learned advo~ate. -On the · · · l · I ·· . · II .··' .:·. •' request of the parties· this court ?}lowed .them to argue the appeal I I ' . by way of written submission. · . i · · . . .- I ·' - I I In support of his complaints G>n the first gr9und of appeal 1 the appellant submitted that the triL Ward Tribun:al delivered its· . I.· I . judgement on 21/6/2012 and ther1after explainetj. to the parties I / on their right to ·appeal within a period of sixty (6_0~I days from_the .. 1. . date of that decision contrary to thb prescribed pe riod of 45 days 1 .. . I .-1I . as provided under Section 20 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, . -I I Cap. 216. That the appellant requested for a CORY of judgement . I ! - on 30/6/2012 and obtained tHe same on 5/7/2012. The · appellant stated that having obtaided that copy otjudgement and . . I II · bonafide relying on the words of tne trial Ward Tribunal to appeal within 60 days he filed his appeal.brr 27/8/2012.i The appellant contended tht in comp_uJg the limitation period the Hon. Chairman was Jnder obligatioh to exclude the time which the appellant used to /wait for a cop~ of judgement as provided under Section 19 (2) of/the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. . I 89; He argued that, the Hon. Chairman shoulo. have started to . I I compute the limitation period of €>0 days from 5/7/2012 when he l . . I ; I was availed with a copy of judgement and ncpt on 21/6/2012 when the judgement was delivbred. He contended that from' ; . .. I I • ~L7 /2912-.. · wheµ · he" obtained his copy df I. judgem.ent ,, to-~: -,~.; . ·1 ' I I I 3 I , ' ; . . t. -.~- ,r;:-', ',, ~ ,.:; . ·.. ;,•··. . ... ,· ';'•-~·/ ··;_,_ ·,, ·•;_,, ,,- . -h' "-· .. · ... ' .· \ •? •.: , :•. • ,•;. •!: ••~ <, j ; , ._._ : •~•·°iiW/"., .:-:<:.~.":'. '"• ~- ~!'" •~';"~ ~·, ••. • • ••,•:/ • ~- • •.• •(,' •- ! •. ' ' •· • '•_: ~ • , : "':!••• :•. -.H• ~.;...;...t~_!•·• ~./. :.!~;,.: r}--•.:.. ,:~.:.:-.·:.,,:< ~ ·...:':.~,~ · ••< ' . '.'. 't. " :v:"; . ;,!•"-• / '•. , ·• ,I'"; ·~· a~:.<>'':, _,, •'.• • •""• ••" ' •., , ~- ':> •,"_· .·. r • ,',_ - :, ·• , - , • • • .; ., : ' , • .~ -. 27/0~f~thi:.wn.en: the. ~ppeaLw~-sfinally iodgeq, the p·eriod- of60_ .. : ., · ·.·:- . - -·-_·,. ,. .1 ,~<t:'r,1_·,,';•.~·r,•:""•,_•:.;:,'~,,_·,..,.::•o . . •:'.·•·' ,-••·:·., ,.. ·,-.•,·... ,_)•;: ,.- . . .· •,•:: ,· •. days:~·tii'at_":wa:s;,.provided: and< announced·'_Jiy the· trial· Ward . . . . ... -•;. "' ...·. • ' • ' . ' if·, . ·· Tribun~.>J:iad not ·expired arid therefore the appeal was not time barred. -- ·· The appellant argued that the prescribed limitation period of 45 days should not be employed in this case because the appellant as a layman relied on the words of the trial Ward Tribunal to file appeal withiri a period of 60 days and therefore it ~ was the trial Ward Tribunal which mistakenly contravened the iaw. On the second complaint the appellant argued that the property in dispute is ~ix acres· of land containing one modern house whose value is over and above the pecuniary jurisdiction - . of thr.ee million shillings. He conte_nded · that Section 16 of the Land Disputes Court Act provides that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Ward Tribunals is three million shillings. In reply, the respondents submission was very brief. They submitted that the District Land and Housing Tribunal was correct to holq that the appeal before it was time barred in view of Section 20 of the Land Dispµtes Courts Act, Cap. 216 which states clearly that every appeal to a District Land and Housing Tribunal shall' be filed in the District Land and Housing Tribunal within forty fiv€ (45) days after .the date of the d~cision of the Ward Tribunal: ·Th_ey further stated that despite the fact that the 4 :1--•~t\::.. •. +,.···•.· . . -. .", -·.•.--~o,_; ~·:':i ..:{~;',.-> • '•,", . . ••, ,,.· ~ ·,, <•·. < :i; .. v'.',.,:\\:• .. i \;•.. .,,1 "< ;:>>'°::•_/ .~~t_;. ;.~-.••,•::J;.\,:·'\.. ,i . :"··_>~i1- ,,(' ~,'; • ...,...... · ,.. I', . • I , .'.',.,-.\:·. ! . . . • ' • • • , o,J i•"'... ·. ..... ~ ' . --~ . ., I .·. ... . . ... \ ~ -\· .. ·• ' :t_ .... i . • •, .,_ ••' .. · . 'l • • ' ,• ...~ • ~ '1,'••• ~ • :.~• ••• •· . ' •••,~~, ;• . •• '";"'-••• ., •..:;•• ' •.. ~ .. , •,,'•~••,f••~~f•, . • . . •-••••••,..-,.•~~•,..\,:1,.•.--•, ,,"-t,,.. ""'••J•,l,~:t",•"J!, •., . . /••~";!• ·. ·r:t•:;• ••••. _,,,1. •~•~:.::,,.•••.'-:i.fo-+:.:,,•••~!":...:._":b,-,~,•::~•-Z::"!''•"{•;.,,,.:.:'t~•:,•,~-•.•.••·•·"-:'(C, ••,_,.!,-:•'•.•,,~::,!•' i,~;, ~.• .· •-•,,t,".r.-.. r ;. , ~;cl~,•.«•••.•· : l.. .. ,' . • ; •' . •• •" . ~ _,, . , ·, ." ·• : • •; t• ,• , • ~ , ; ·I • ' - t ·, ,· ' -~ . appellan~. was:. aware-. that he ·was .!time ba_:rr:ed n9_ at-tempt: was -; ._ ,, · . . ·.: . .- : .-- .. --.·,.··· ·. -· . --· _. ,.. l. . . . . j ·- . -_ , ,.. -.···--- . _.· - . ,· -. made to. apply. . for' extension -of ttme Virithin ~rJ.i.ich: to appeal.~-,·::.·:--' . . ~ ' . ' against th~t- decision of the trial. Wafd ·Tribunal. . • ,. · .. 1 . Having heard all' the parties, 1et me put one issue straight- . I I i. . l . . that in his submission the appellant, The Registered Trustees of the - Muslim Council of Tanzani), who is never a 'layman' - . ! I categorically admitted that the trial Ward Tribunal was -wrong to · I , I . advice parties to appeal within /a period of qO days. The appellant is pretty aware that the brescribed: limi~ation period is · ~ r . ! 45 days and Section 20 of the Lanq Disputes Couft Ac!, Cap. 216 I is very clear on that. It is su~prising that the appellant is attempting to justify that wrong a~vice and misaJp!ication of the law in order to proceed with his a;ppeal filed in ~ontravention of . the law without even s·eeking for e~tension of time!. I I on· the other hand the appellant has beerl presenting his· arguments- as if .this is an appek against .the: decision of the ·. . ·. ! I . District Land and Housing. Triblirial refusing to igrant extension of time to file an· appeal out of timk. What was b¢fore the District Land and Ho1,1sing Tribunal was ~ Land Appeal: No. 71 of 2013 where the respondents filed a prdliminary objection to the effe~t . l. I that the appeal was filed out of !tlme: The appellant conceded that fact before . the District Land ind Housing • Tiibunal I and even before this court he has insisted the same to tHe effect that the · I . I judgement <;>f the . tr~al "W~d Tribunal w~s. _deHve~ed on -~ 21/6/2012; that: µe ·re.~uested ffot.:; a--. c;opy/ ·of, j~dgemen t on I 5 :.: I I ' ,.J ~' . I• ,· 'Jo ,4.i, .. - , ,1- u..i:. ,.,, . 30/6/20'.12-; that he was is.sued vvith that ·~opy of judgement ·on ··. ... -- 5/7/2012; thp.t the ·appeal ·was lodged to· the District Land and ~ . . . . .. Housing"Tribunal_on27/~/2012. ·_ ., · To that extent the· appeaf'.was lodged about 66 days from· the date of judgement. · The law under Section 20 of the Land . . . Disputes Court Act, Cap. 216 provide that the appeal from Ward Tribunal to the District Land and·Housing Tribunal is 45 days. I agree with the appellant that the law under Section 19 (2) (3) -of the Law of Limitation Acts, Cap. 89 provide that in comp~ti_ng the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal the day on which the judgement was delivered and the period of time requisite for obtaining~ copy of the judgement shall be excluded. . .. The appellant was given his copy of judgement on 5/7/2012 and therefore the period between 21/6/2012 and 5/7/2012 should have been excluded as provided _by the law. If that is done, then the appeal was filed after. 52 days from the date when the appellant was availed with a copy of judgem~nt. -According to that position of the law the appeal was fiied out of the prescribed period of 45 days. The appellants contention that the prescribed limitation p~riod in this case should have been 60 _days because that was ' the period mentioned by the trial Ward Tribunal cannot be accepted.· Such. argµment - may be a good reason .to be tabled ~ ~. and - . canvassed 1n an application for extension. of -time to . file the ,.:-.,., · c,.,. 6 !i'l\:>•--c·::,;<)~-, ;Yf 'y:{-;,, if ::•,i-,•· ' ,•~•}! '."':1•' ,. A_'-'W<'•,. ·-r :;,;::er•- <••_·• :·;:~'fJ'->";~ 1 0 . • .. ~. . ,. : ., . i . . ; s ··': ••• ' i ""•": •. ··•·'·: '-• ____ .; -~, ' " ' ' / • ·"1' ,. >.... ·,-: ?. : •. : <. .. ~ppe~ ,oµt of time<bl.l;f nqt a ·-reas~t:i tp justify ar-1 appeal file.~. oµt ·.. ·, .. '·~. ' . .. . . ". .. ' ·. ~ .'.,-. . , . . . . , j. • . . r. ,'. ~-. ,' .... , ..:~ .. : of.time. ;,, -,.-',-·.:_::·· ·' •.·i ·· -~···:,· .". . ·_.·-.- .· · .... _ .• If - · • •• •,,•, I • I.·. .:.· ..•······ -·.•.'·•-.'-.,'.-·: . ',•_ . '·! -.- · . . ~ : ,· .· ·1 . ' i ': . .. ., In my considered opinion, in such a scenario~ the appellant . ' ' '. . ' ;_. j . . . . was supposed to file: an application seekirig for extension of time . to file. his appeal .out .of time. Im. such an apblication he is -· . I ; required to .adduce sufficient reasons for the de~ay to warrant grant of extension of time. It 'is surbrising that thi appellant has been capitalizing on the wrong adJice of the trial IWard Tribunal . . ·. to rescue an incompetent appeal. The appel,ant has been I I ' adducingreasons for the delay at a 1wrong forum_. I ' I I . ... I I The second ground of appeal is also misguicied. The issue ' ·1 ofa house erected on the land in dispute has been raised by the · I . I appellant for the first time at this stage of appeal. That issue was 1 neither raised nor discussed befoJe the trial wJd Tribunal and the value of the said house is unk~10Wil even to ~e.appellant.. In addition the case before the trial Ward Tribunal r7as filed by the appellant who _is ,now maki:µg ild allegation~ on pecU.niary · jurisdiction of the trial Ward TriJunal without ~y evidence to substantiate. I :I · I In conclusion, _this appeal has no merits 'Thatsoever. It is · hereby dismissed with costs. · · •• I • I I M. ~- SHtNGALI I I ' ( .....r,, , . .,...,. JUDGE h' .".--~l_•j- ., . .-• ,~_: ·. .. , , .' e--;r~•-. ,. :< '. \. ....... ,. '1( . .,. , '\.';t,..• 26/9i2014 7 . ., . ~--1 . - .• .J .. : •• . •,. ,.,... . '' :·,- Judgern~nt\cielive;~d \iri':th~ .• pris~ri.ce;' of ·rvfr. l\1aj1d Salum: . • . . . . . •: ; . ; • • ·, ~, . •,' , . •·· - 't ., , ., representing'. th</;:a:ppellant :·and_· Mr:;. (~ .. O~esmo: Francis,. learned ' . , advocate representing the respondents.' · ·, ' ' •, M. S. SHANGALI JUDGE _26/9/2014 8