TUMAINI SEBASTIAN VS MATHIAS 222222 EDIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MANYARA AT BABATI MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPEAL NO. 9059 OF 2024 (Arising from Land Application No. 136 of 2013 at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Babati at Babati) TUMAINI SEBASTIAN (Administrator of the estate of the late MARTIN HAYYUMA).......................................... Applicant VERSUS MATHIAS DAGHARO.................................................... 1st RESPONDENT CLEMENT TLUWAY....................................................... 2nd RESPONDENT USOMANA SACCOS....................................................... 3rd RESPONDENT VISIONARY AUCTION MART........................................ 4th RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 24th June & 2(fh August, 2024 Kahyoza, J. Tumaini Sebastian (Administrator of the Estate of the late Martin Hayyuma') (Tumaini) filed an application seeking this Court to call and examine the record of the Land District and Housing Tribunal (the tribunal) to satisfy itself on the legality and the regularity of the order and proceedings. The nexus's of the applicant's contention was that the acts of the chairperson taking over the case without any information and dismissing the case led to the illegal order and irregular proceedings. 1 The Respondents did not file a counter affidavit to oppose the application. The issue is whether the proceedings were illegal or irregular. A brief background is that Tumaini sued Mathias Dagharo, Clement Tluway and USOMANA SACCOS claiming that the USOMANA SACCOS employed Visionary Mart, the auctioneer to sell Clement's land instead she sold Tumaini's father's land. He alleged that Clement obtained a loan from USOMANA SACCOS and defaulted to repay it. USOMANA SACCOS refuted the claims. After pleadings were complete the trial commenced. As the record bears testimony, Tumaini prayed Hon. C. P. Kamugisha to disqualify from the conduct of the case on 22.5.2017. He alleged that he had no confidence with Hon. C. P. Kamugisha. He did not disclose grounds for his lack of confidence in Hon. C. P. Kamugisha, the chairperson of the tribunal. Hon. C. P. Kamugisha withdrew from hearing the case. The matter was adjourned several times before C. P. Kamugisha. Later, the parties appeared before M. S. Mahelele, chairperson who adjourned the case several times. Mdachi, the chairperson, took over. Finally, on 24.06.2022, the parties appeared before K. C. Ngonyani who framed issues and heard Tumaini's evidence. The matter was adjourned for more than one year for flimsy or no reason at all. 2 On the 29.11.2023 the parties appeared before Hon. Ntumengwa M. Ntumengwa, chairperson. Tumaini prayed the matter to proceed before Hon. Ngonyani who had commenced hearing the matter. Hon. Ntumengwa M. Ntumengwa, chairperson, adjourned the matter to 28.02.2024. On 28.2.2024 parties appeared before Ntumengwa M. Ntumengwa, chairperson, to whom Tumaini applied for adjournment to await Hon. Ngonyani to hear and determine the application. The chairperson, Hon. Ntumengwa M. Ntumengwa notified Tumaini that he had been notified that since Hon. Ngonyani was transferred he will not come back to hear the case. Hon Ntumengwa M. Ntumengwa made it clear that it was upon the staff at Babati tribunal to determine the application. He insisted that no party had the right to select a chairperson to hear and determine his application. He called upon Tumaini to proceed Tumaini refuted to prosecute the matter before Ntumengwa M. Ntumengwa, the tribunal chairperson. Hon. Ntumengwa then dismissed Tumaini's application because Tumaini had no right to select a chairperson to determine his application. Aggrieved, Tumaini applied for revision. I reviewed the record and considered the tribunal's ground for dismissing the application. To say the 3 least, I find no reason to fault the tribunal's order. It clear that Hon. Ntumegwa informed Tumaini that he was instructed to hear and determine the matter as Hon Ngonyani who had been transferred and he would not return to that station and hear the case. Tumaini had no reason not to proceed before Hon. Ntumengwa or did he have any reason to press that his application ought to be determined by Hon. Ngonyani. I agree with Hon. Ntumegwa that parties have no right to choose a judge, a magistrate, or a chairperson to hear their case. Tumaini complained in his affidavit that the tribunal did not inform him that Hon. Ntumegwa had been appointed to hear the case. Tumaini lied and he did so in his affidavit. Hon. Ntumegwa notified him that his prayer that to have Hon. Ngonyani, chairperson to hear the application had been denied. Hon. Ntumegwa further notified Tumaini that he has no right to select a chairperson to hear his application. Despite Tumaini being so informed, he did not wish to proceed with his case. I do not find anything illegal or irregular with the tribunal's order dismissing the application after Tumaini, the applicant refuted to prosecute the application. The tribunal was justified after Tumaini, the applicant, refuted to prosecute his application. 4 In the end, I find that the application for revision without merit and dismiss it with costs. I order accordingly. Dated at Babati this 20th day of August, 2024 John R. Kahyoza Judge Court: Judgment delivered in the presence of the parties except the forth respondent. B/C. Ms. Fatina (RMA) present. John R. Kahyoza, J. 20. 8. 2024 5