veronica sayungu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (DODOMA DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DODOMA LAND REVISION NO. 19500 OF 2024 (Originating from District Land and Housing Tribunal for Dodoma at Dodoma in Land Application no. 16 of 2024) VERONICA SAYANGU (Suing as an administratrix of the late EXAVERY MTWEVE)..................................................................................... IstAPPLICA NEEMA PRISCUS MTEI........................................................................ 2NDAPPLICAN ABDALA HUSSEIN AAKUAABO............................................................. 3rdAPPLICAN DEOGRATIUS ISHENGOMA.................................................................. 4thAPPLICAN ALLY BAKARI........................................................................................ 5thAPPLICAN BEATRICE NANGALI MKIMA................................................................. 6thAPPLICAN ANDREW KINYEYANA........................................................................... 7thAPPLICAN VERSUS ROSE ELIAS MBOYA (Sued as an administratrix of ELIAS JOHN MBOYA).............................................................RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 12/11/2024 Date of Ruling: 27/12/2024 KHALFAN, J. The applicants have filed the instant application for revision under section 41(1) of the Land Dispute Court Act [Cap 216 R.E. 2019], i (hereinafter referred to as "the LDCA") seeking for one substantive relief namely, this court be pleased to call and satisfy itself on the illegality, propriety of the proceedings and revise the dismissal order of 9.7.2024 in Land Application No. 16/2024 before the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Dodoma. The applicants allege that, the trial chairman dismissed the preliminary objections of the 1st applicant against the dictates of the laws governing fair hearing of the matter in courts and tribunals and the same be restored and determined on merit. This application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicants' advocate. On the other hand, the respondent filed a counter affidavit to contest the application. It is on record that, this application was disposed of by way of written submissions. In the course of composing the ruling, it came to my attention that, this application for revision was preferred against the order which did not finally determine the matter. Hence, I invited the parties to address the court regarding the competence of this application. However, it is only the respondent who filed the written submissions in response to the issue raised by the court. In his written submissions, the learned advocate for the respondent argued that, this application was an abuse of court process since the 2 remedy available for the applicants was to seek an order for setting aside the dismissal of the preliminary objections. He referred to the provision of regulation 11(2) of the Land Disputes Courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, GN, No. 174 of 2003. He therefore urged this court to dismiss the application with costs. Having gone through the respondent's submission, it is not in dispute that the instant application is a result of the order by the trial tribunal dismissing the preliminary objections raised by the applicants. It is on record that, on the day the matter was called on for hearing of the preliminary objections, the applicants' advocate was absent although it has been claimed that, he sent another advocate to hold his brief. The learned trial chairman dismissed the preliminary objections for want of prosecution and ordered the hearing of the application to proceed on merits. The applicants were aggrieved with such order; hence they preferred the instant application for revision seeking the order of the court to revise the order dismissing the preliminary objections. I am of the considered view that, the order by the trial tribunal dismissing the preliminary objections was an interlocutory one which did not finally determine the matter. Therefore, no revision could be preferred against such order. This prohibition is made clear under section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E 2019], (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") which reads; "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), no application for revision shall He or be made in respect of any preliminary or interlocutory decision or order of the Court unless such decision or order has the effect of finally determining the suit". [Emphasis added] The phrase "finally determining the suit" has been defined to mean a decision or order which has an effect of finally determining the rights and liabilities of the parties. In the case of Junaco and Another v. Harel Mallac Tanzania Limited, Civil Application No. 473/16 of 2016 (unreported) the Court of Appeal defined the phrase as follows: "An order or decision is final if it finally disposes the rights of the parties" See also the case of Jitesh Jayantilal Ladwa and Another v. Dhirajilal Walji Ladwa and 2 Others, Civil Application No. 154 of 2020 and Vodacom Tanzania Public Limited Company v. Planetel Communications Limited, Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2018 (both unreported). 4 It follows therefore that the impugned order of the trial tribunal was an interlocutory order which did not finally determine the matter. Thus, no application for revision could be preferred against it. Consequently, I find this application incompetent before the court and the same is struck out. Since the point regarding the competence of the application was raised by the court suo motu, I will not make an order as to costs. It is so ordered. 5