kamata safii

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO. 000002754 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 20240213000002754 VICKY PASCAL KAMATA alias VICKY KAMATA LIKWELILE.......... PLAINTIFF VERSUS RAYMOND BABU LIKWELILE (DULY APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE DR. SERVACIUS BEDA LIKWELILE)...................... DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 27/02/2025 & 08/4/2025 GWAE, J This suit is a resistance or denial to a significant social stigma, not to seek formal legal recourse or make courts to pronounce certain rights that, exist among persons of different genders who were in true love affairs and in intimacy relationships prior to a death or sickness of one of the two persons. The rights or obligations that must have been known better by such persons than any other persons. i In this lawsuit, the plaintiff, Vicky Pascal Kamata alias Vicky Kamata Likwelile and the late Dr. Servacius Beda Likwelile (deceased person) had an intimate relationship from 2015 to 2021 when the deceased met his demise. However, after the demise of the late Likwelile, there was an institution of Probate and Administration Cause No. 50 of 2021 before this Court at Dar es salaam Sub-registry by the defendant, Raymond Babu Likwelile. In its verdict, this Court (Rwizile, J) granted letters of Administration in favour of the defendant and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's caveat. Nevertheless, without hesitation, the Court held that, it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to determine on, whether certain properties enlisted as the estate of the late Dr. Likwelile were acquired through joint efforts of the plaintiff and deceased person. Subsequent to the delivery of the judgment and decree in the said Probate and Administration Cause there was a notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal followed by a withdrawal of the same. The plaintiff has now lodged this suit against the defendant. Her claims are founded on the alleged inclusion of her own properties in the administration of the estate of the defendant's late father and interest on one property though she had 2 not contributed to its acquisition but she claims to have improved its value. She thus prays for the following orders:- 1. Declaration that, the properties to wit, the House on Plots No. 387 and 389, Block "D", Sinza Area, Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam, Plot No. 116, Block "3" Mbweni JKT with Certificate of Title No. 112054, 50% of the property measuring 9.5 acres with two houses purchased by the Late Likwelile and jointly development by the Plaintiff and Late Likwelile and the house at Kibamba Area, Ubungo Municipality which the Plaintiff personally purchased and therefore the absolute and exclusive owner thereof, which were wrongly and unlawfully included as part of the estate of the Late Likwelile. 2. Declaration that, the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit properties 3. An order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his servants, agents and workers or any other person from deriving title from the Defendant from trespassing or occupation of the suit properties, 4. General damages 5. Costs. 6. Any other relief this honourable Court deems fit to grant. On his defence, the defendant strongly averred that, the properties mentioned in the plaintiff's prayer (1) above are the lawful belongings of the 3 deceased in exclusion of the plaintiff. Therefore, the same are subject to the administration of the deceased's estate. He also stated that, the Probate Court did declare that, the enlisted properties are the exclusive properties of the deceased and that, the plaintiff forged documents to unlawfully entitle herself to such properties. In her reply to the defendant's written statement of defence, the plaintiff reiterated what is contained in the plaint and added that, the Probate and Administration Court vide Probate and Administration Cause No. 50 of 2021 correctly held that, it had no competency to determine on how the properties mentioned in the Petition were acquired between the Plaintiff and the Deceased. At the statutory Mediation conducted by the Mediation Center, DSM before an appointed Mediator, Hon. Judge Angela Bahati Salema, the parties partly reached a mutually acceptable settlement through Mediation No. 103 of 2024. The said mediation was conducted in terms of Order VIII (C) of the CPC. The parties' Deed of Settlement was principally to the effect that, the following properties in the plaintiff's claim (1) above, are the lawfully owned by the plaintiff and her daughter one Gloria Likwelile owning the property at Kibamba as follows:- 4 a. The house on Plot No. 387 and 389 Block "D" Sinza D, Sinza area Kinondoni Municipality in Dar es salaam Region b. The house at Kibamba area, Ubungo Municipality was purchased by the plaintiff for the interest and benefit of Gloria Likwelile On the strength of above Partial settlement before the Mediator, the Deed of Settlement was executed in terms of Order VIII Rule 31 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33, Revised Edition, 2019 (CPC). Thereafter, the parties' dispute on the properties in item (a) and (b) above was recorded as settled and the parties' dispute that remains unresolved, hence requiring court's resolution is, on 50 % shares of the unsurveyed landed property measuring 9.5 acres with two houses situated at Mpigi-Magohe in Dar es salaam and a house on Plot No. 116 Block "3" Mbweni JKT with Certificate of Title No. 112054 (hereinafter to be referred to as Mpigi-Magohe suit property and Mbweni suit property respectively). Before and during trial, Mr. Deogratias John Lyimo assisted by Mr. Alex Mashamba Balomi, learned advocates represented the plaintiff whereas advocate Edwin Nkalani represented the defendant. With consultation with the parties' advocates aforementioned, the following issues were framed in 5 terms of Order VIII Rule 41 of the CPC as guidance towards trial and court's determination of the case:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the House on Plot No. 116 Block '3' Mbweni JKT Kinondoni Municipality in Dar salaam Region with Certificate of Title No. 1120554. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 50% interest over unsurveyed land measuring 9.5 acres located at Mpigi-Magohe-Ubungo Municipality in Dar es salaam Region 3. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to. It was consensually agreed by the parties' advocates to be conducted by way of witness statements followed by tendering of exhibits and cross- examinations in terms of Order XVIII Rule, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the CPC as amended by the Civil Procedure Code (Amended of the First Schedule) Rules, 2021. The plaintiff started rolling the ball by having her sworn witness statement filed immediately in Court after the mediation in support of the suit followed by a witness statement of her witness, one Douglas Mmari (PW2). In her statement, the plaintiff reiterated her stance as pleaded in the plaint that, she is the lawful owner of the Mbweni property and that, she has 6 an interest at the rate of 50 % for the Mpigi-Magohe suit property, which are now under the hands of the defendant as an administrator of the estate of the deceased with whom she was in intimate love for a quite long period and who paid a traditional dowry for her. Thus, the deceased and plaintiff lived as husband and wife respectively. PW1 added that from 2015 to 2021 they were able to jointly acquire various landed properties and developed some of landed properties which were previously acquired by the deceased person alone. The plaintiff further stated that, she initially preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the decision of this Court in Probate and Administration Cause No. 50 of 2021 but as her second thought,q she finally withdrew her Notice of Appeal and in lieu thereof, she filed this suit to the Court. The plaintiff went on stating that, the Mbweni Property was acquired by joint efforts of her and that of the deceased from Ran IT Solutions (EA) Ltd of P. O Box 7880, Dar es Salaam at the tune of Tshs.400,000,000/= payable within 36 months by the purchasers who ought to pay Tshs. 200, 000,000/= each and that it was payable in two instalments. She added that, their acquisition of the Property on Mbweni area was followed by the transfer 7 of ownership documents. These are:-the Land Transfer Agreement, transfer of the Right of Occupancy (Land Form No. 35); Notification of the disposition (Land Form No. 29) and last but not least an Application for approval of disposition (Land Form No. 30). The plaintiff stated that, the sale agreement and transfer documents were executed by the vendor or previous owner through Said Hamad Lugumi who also received the purchase price through his account and Mary Samwel Bubize as the seller's directors as well as Juma Hamad Lugumi who is said to have acted as the Secretary of the vendor, the deceased and herself. It is also the evidence by the plaintiff that, the vendor was fully paid the purchase price by December 2015 and that both deceased and plaintiff acquired vacant possession of the Mbweni suit property in 2016, which was by then semi-finished house and that they started living therein until the year 2021 when the deceased passed away. The plaintiff also stated that, there were major repairs/ developments that, were effected by the purchasers who were joint owners under the Joint Tenancy arrangement of the Mbweni property and that, the vendor via Said Hamad Lugumi handed over the Certificate of Title and transfer documents aforementioned. She thus stated that, she is the lawful owner of the Mbweni 8 property since the demise of the deceased on 19th February, 2021 since the essence of joint tenancy was that, in the event one tenant between the two, ,dies first, the surviving tenant shall become the sole owner of the whole property. She proceeded stating that, both joint owners under joint tenancy were after formalizing the transfer however the late Dr. Likwelile passed away in 2021 culminating into the filing of caveat in the Probated and Administration Cause. The plaintiff also told the court through her witness statement that, she had sources of her earnings from 2006 to 2010 when she was a senior officer with the BOT and thereafter being a Member of Parliament from 2010 to year 2020. Therefore, she was financially capable of paying Tshs. 200, 000,000/= towards their joint acquisition of Mbweni property and heavy investment for the Mpigi-Magohe property into a business complex including swimming pool, gym facilities, bar, small shop/mini supermarket, exclusive garden, recreational hall, kitchen and lounge unlike prior to her intimacy relationship with the deceased. She estimated to have contributed toward improvements of Mpigi- Magohe property at the tune of Tshs. 200,000,000/= as was the case to the deceased. However, she stated that, she did not keep purchase receipts of 9 building materials, furniture and all fittings that is why she had been unable to tender the same adding that, she was the one who was closely supervising the Mpigi-Mgohe project unlike the deceased. In support of her sworn statement, the plaintiff appeared before the Court for tendering exhibits and for cross-examination. The exhibits that were produced by the plaintiff (PW1) were:- A plaintiffs witness statement (Exhibit P1-PE1), Judgment of this Court at Dar es salaam Sub-registry in Probate and Administration Cause No. 50 of 2021 delivered on 15th day of September 2023 (PE2), a withdrawal Order of Notice of Appeal issued 26th January 20224 (PE3), a sale agreement the transfer documents on the Plot No. 116, Block "3", Mbweni JKT, Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam with Certificate of Title No. 112054, transferor being Ran IT Solution (EA) Ltd and transferees being the deceased and plaintiff duly witnessed by advocate Douglas Mmari on 9th day of November 2015 (PE4) and the Special Board Resolution of the Board of Directors of RAN IT Solution (EA) Ltd was received and marked as (PE5) Other exhibits that were tendered by the plaintiff during trial were; the Certificate of Title No. 112054 on Plot No. 116, Block "3", Mbweni JKT, Kinondoni Municipality, Dar es Salaam the name of Venance Majogo as the io original owner or holder of the R/0 (PE6) followed by RAN IT Solution (EA) Limited (PE6) form 15th January 2015, Petition filed by the defendant before this Court at Dar es salaam Sub-registry (PE7), final Accounts of the deceased person's estate (PE8), the deceased's family meeting minutes dated 11th April 2021 appointing the parties to be co-administrators of the deceased's estate (PE9) and witness statement of advocate Douglas Mmari who appeared as PW2 (PE10). When probed by Mr. Nkalani as to whether there is pleaded fact in her plaint that, she contributed Tshs. 200,000,000/= towards acquisition of the Mbezi Property, the plaintiff replied that, she neither pleaded nor has she produced any document substantiating that assertion. However, she stated that, the documents tendered and received by the Court are self-explanatory that she contributed. On the other hand, the defendant through his witness statement stated that, the Mbweni property was solely purchased by his late father in 2015. He equally told the Court that, the suit property located at Mpigi Magohe area on unsurveyed land contains four plots to wit; Plot No. 318, 319, 320 and 321 Block "D" Mpigi-Magohe was singularly owned by the deceased and that, the plaintiff became familiar with the disputed properties ii and others as she had an extra or extended marital relationship with the late Dr. Likwelile. Lastly, the defendant stated that, the fact that the disputed properties were solely properties of the deceased person is substantiated by the family meetings minute in which the same were listed as the deceased's estate in the presence of the plaintiff. DWI therefore stated that the plaintiff had no interest whatsoever in the disputed properties. Supporting his defence, the defendant appeared before the Court as DWI and produced the following exhibits:- One his witness statement (DEI), letters of Administration granted by this Court at Dar salaam Sub-registry on 15th September 2023 in favour of the defendant (DE2) official search reports in respect of Plots Nos. 318 to 320 Block "D" located at Mpigi-Magohe Kinondoni District now Ubungo District conducted on 17th day of January 2024 (DE3). On cross-examination by the plaintiff's counsel, on whether he was aware of the transfer documents and on whether he is knowledgeable of the status of joint tenancy in common in the event one joint tenant dies, the defendant replied that, he came to see the transfer documents (PE4) through 12 the plaintiff's copy of the plaint and during trial of the case and that he was well imparted if one joint tenant dies, the surviving joint tenant becomes a sole owner. After close of the parties' evidence, the parties' advocates applied for and were granted leave to file their closing submission. The advocates for the parties subsequently filed their respective submissions for and against the suit. I will however consider the same in the course of determining the framed issues herein. In the first issue, on whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the house on Plot No. 116 Block "3"Mbweni JKTKinondoni Municipality. It is not in dispute that, the plaintiff and deceased happened to be lovers and in a certain period between 2015 to 2021, they lived together as wife and husband respectively as depicted in the judgment of this Court (Rwizile, J) pronounced on 15th September 2023 (PEI). More so, it is plainly clear that, the plaintiff had worked as a BOT's senior officer for years and as a special seat member of the Parliament from 2010 to 2020 as rightly adduced and submitted by the defendant's counsel. 13 Similarly, it is clear from the parties' pleadings especially in Paragraph 4 of the plaintiff's plaint and written statement of defence whose essence is to the effect that, the marriage between the plaintiff and the deceased was declared unlawfully on the reason of the existence of deceased person's marriage with another woman called Mary Ibrahim. That being the position, the court's duty is now to assess the parties' evidence either establishing or disproving the claim on whether the plaintiff is currently is the owner of the Mbweni disputed Property as surviving joint tenant after the demise of the late Dr. Likwelile . Before analysis of the parties' evidence, I find worthy to underline the principle of law relating to proof in civil cases. Standard of proof in civil case is provided under section 3 (2) (b), 110, 111 and 112 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6, Revised Edition, 2019 (TEA). Section 3 (2) (b) of TEA reads "(2) A fact is said to be proved when (a) Not relevant (b) In civil matters, including matrimonial causes and matters, its existence is established by a preponderance ofprobability." 14 My reading of the above quoted provision of the law, reveals that, the standard of proof on existence of certain facts asserted by a party in judicial proceedings, must be proved in the balance of probabilities showing that the fact or thing actually happened. Hence, the burden of proof lies on a party who asserts such existence of a fact so that, a court of law may enter judgment in his or her favour as envisaged under provisions of section 110, 111 and 112 of the TEA. In our jurisdiction the legal position as far as standard of proof in civil cases has been consistently stressed in a plethora of decisions for instance in Agatha Mshote vs. Edson Emmanuel & Others (Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2019) [2021] TZCA 323 (20 July 2021 TANZLII) where it was held:- "In view of what we have endeavoured to discuss, the appellant failed to prove her case on the balance of probabilities and it cannot be safely vouched that she had discharged the burden as required under section 110 of the Evidence Act. That said, since the burden of proof never shifts to the adverse party until the party on whom the onus lies discharges that burden, as earlier stated, the weakness of the respondents' case, if any, cannot salvage the plight of the unproven appellant's case." 15 The same stance was taken by the Court of Appeal in the case cited by the defendant's counsel in Agapiti Fidelis Masika and Another vs. Oliver Fidelis Masika and another (Civil Appeal No. 466 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 1127 (19 November 2024). I also find apposite to subscribe to a case law of the foreign jurisdiction in Miller versus Minister of Pensions (1937) 2AI.ER 372 cited by the plaintiff's counsel in his final submission where the Lord Denning held and I quote; "If at the end of the case, the evidence turns the scale definitely one way or another, the Tribunal must decide accordingly but if the evidence is so evenly balance that the Tribunal is unable to come to a determinate conclusion one way or another, then the man must be given the benefit of doubt. This means that the case must be decided in favour of the man unless the evidence against him reaches the same degree of cogency as is required to discharge a burden in a Civil case. That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree ofprobability, but no so high as required in a criminal case. 16 If the evidence is such that the Tribunal can say:- We think it more probable than not the burden is discharged, but if the probabilities are equal, it is not..." See also Manager, NBC, Tarime vs. Enock m. Chacha (1993) TLR 228, Godfrey Sayi vs. Anna Siame (as legal representative of the Late Mary Mndolwa) (Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012), [2017] TZCA 213 (21 February 2017) Godfrey Sayi vs. Anna Siame (as Legal Representative of the late Mary Mndolwa), Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012 (unreported-CAT) and Hemed Said vs. Mohamed Mbilu \198d\ TLR 113. In our instant suit, it is the plaintiff's evidence that, she contributed half of the purchase price (Tshs. 400,000,000/=). She further testified that, the late Dr. Likwelile also paid half of the price and the purchase was fully paid to the vendor's Managing Director one Said Hamad Lugumi. This piece of oral evidence was supported by documentary evidence such the transfer documents which were collectively admitted as exhibit P4, in which the consideration sum is indicated to be Tshs 400,000,000/= at Article 3 of Land Transfer Agreement. Equally, the same amount and the contracting parties' names are portrayed in the transfer of a Right of Occupancy Document 17 witnessed by PW2, who played a role of a commissioner for oaths on 9th day of November 2015. On the other hand, the defendant's assertion through his testimony and closing submission is that, the transfer documents are questionable or doubtful and that living together for some years is not per se conclusive evidence for joint acquisition and development of properties as in law one has to sufficiently justify individual contributions towards acquisition of such properties, this contention by the defendant should also not be taken lightly by the Court. My careful scrutiny of the parties' evidence signifies that, the plaintiff has managed to satisfactorily establish that, the mbweni property was jointly owned by the deceased and her under joint tenancy or joint occupancy through transfer documents through her oral evidence as PW1 and that of the attesting officer, advocate Douglas Mmari, PW2. I am persuaded so for due to the following reasons;- Firstly, that, in every landform or transfer documents (PE4), there are the following words "SERVACIUS BEDA LIKWELILE and VICKY KAMATA LIKWELILE as joint owners" which are indicative that the deceased and 18 plaintiff were joint owners of the Mbweni disputed property. In my firm view, the documentary evidence is more reliable and trustworthy due to its permanence and the ability to verify its authenticity than oral evidence, which is more subjective and prone to error or may be tainted with indirect motives. Therefore, the documentary remains reliable until and unless the contrary is established. Recognition of documentary evidence is provided under section 61 of the TEA, which provides; "57. AH facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence." Secondly, that, if the plaintiff really forged the transfer documents, as contended by the defendant, it would not be possible for her to be in possession of the Original Certificate of Title (PE6) in respect of the Mbweni property since the same would be in possession of one of the vendor's directors or any other persons entrusted to safely keep it. Thirdly, the evidence of attesting officer of the sale agreement or Transfer Deed of the Right of Occupancy has sufficiently proven that it was Mr. Said Lugumi, the deceased and plaintiff who appeared before him and the ones who duly signed the transfer deed of the Right of Occupancy on 9th 19 November 2015. His testimony adduced pursuant to section 70 of the TEA, has not been shakened in any way. Fourthly, Transferor or vendor of the Mbweni property has never disputed the execution of exhibit P4. There are also neither any case that, has been filed against the plaintiff for an offence of theft of the Certificate of Title (PE6) nor is there any allegation of forgery by either the defendant or vendor. Correspondingly, the defendant through his written statement of defence did plead forgery of the documents on the part of the plaintiff but did not indicate particulars of the forgery. The plaintiff cannot be justly heard stating that, the property of Mbweni is exclusively owned by the deceased while he does not have any evidence to the contrary establishing the alleged forgery of the transfer documents (PE4). It is common ground that allegation on fraud or forgery requires strict proof, though not as used to be the proof beyond reasonable double in criminal cases but he ought to have discharged that duty. I support my finding with a judicial authority in the case of Ratilal Gordhanbhai vs. Lalji Mkanji (1957) E.A 314 approved by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in City Coffee Limited vs. Registered Trustees of Holo Coffee Group, 20 Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2018 (2019) TZCA 645 (1 November 2019), it was held:- "Allegations of fraud must be strictly proved, although the standard of proof may not be so heavy as to require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Something more than a mere balance ofprobabilities is required." The same position was taken by the Court of Appeal (T) in Omari Yusufu vs. Rahma Ahmed Abdulkadr (1987) TLR at page 174 where it was stated: "It is now established that when the question whether someone has committed a crime is raised in civil proceedings the allegation needs to be established on a higher degree of probability than that is required in ordinary civil cases." In the absence of the evidence contrary from the one adduced by the plaintiff and reasons demonstrated, I unhesitatingly find that, it is more probable that, the sale agreement and transfer documents were signed by the contracting parties and finally witnessed by DW2 happened than not to have happened. I associate by finding with the jurisprudence in Siraj Din vs. Ali Mohamed Khan [1957] 1 EA 25, where stated: 21 "The quantum of proof ordinarily required in civil litigation is not such as resolves all doubt whatsoever but such as establishes a preponderance of probability in favour of one party or the other". I am alive of the cherished principle that, plaintiffs in civil proceedings win their cases not on the weakness of the defendant's defence but on the strength of their evidence adduced before a competent court as was rightly stressed in Agatha Mshote vs. Edson Emmanuel & Others (supra). In our present suit, it is patently found that, the deceased person's signatures appearing in PE4 have not been disputed by the defendant through his written statement of defence as well as during hearing of the case. For clarity parts of his replies when cross-examined by the plaintiff's advocates, are reproduced herein under:- "I have just seen PE4 at the first instance through the plaintiff's plaint. PE4 are signed by the late Likwelile and plaintiff as joint purchasers that was on 9h November 2015 and the same witnessed by one Douglas Mmari as an advocate who testified before the Court in my absence. I cannot have any document contrary to the ones in PE4. I am aware that any transfer of land must be reduced into writing." 22 I have further considered the fact, the date in the Body Resolution (PE5) is indicated to be of 10th November 2015 after the sale agreement and signing of transfer of documents (PE4), but I am not convinced if that alone vitiates the disposition of the property in Mbweni as attemptedly submitted by the defendant's advocate since there is no issue as to the lawfulness of the disposition of Mbweni Property between the contracting parties. I have considered also the issue of official search by the plaintiff does not arise as the plaintiff is the one in possession of all necessary documents including the Certificate of Title lucidly revealing that the vendor as a registered owner of Mbweni Property from 15th January 2015 to 9th November 2015. Hence, there was no requirement her to either apply for official search or join the vendor in these proceedings. Nevertheless, both sides including the Court lucidly endeavoured to prosecure the requisite appearance of the vendor's Managing Director, Mr. Said Hamad Lugumi but the efforts were ineffective. Hence, the assertion or submission by the defendant's counsel that, the court ought to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff's evidence is unfounded. It follows therefore, after having examined the evidence adduced before this court in its totality, I am therefore of satisfied that, the plaintiff's 23 evidence is heavier than that of the defendant. She is thus found to have discharged her obligation in proving that, she is the one of the lawful joint owners of the Property at Mbweni area. Therefore, she is the surviving joint tenant. Having deliberated as herein, the question that follows is whether, the plaintiff as the surviving owner after the demise of the late Dr. Likwelile is now a sole owner of the suit land at Mbweni in exclusion of the deceased's heirs. As alluded earlier, the word used is the deceased and the plaintiff as co-owners of the landed property at Mbweni. In order to be safer in determining this question, I must make a thorough traverse to the applicable law and case law, if any. The plaintiff heavily relies on the sale agreement and the transfer documents (PE4). There is the Land Registration Act, Cap 344, Revised Edition, 2019 (LRA), which I am guided by the plaintiff's counsel to section 45 and 69 of LRA unlike the learned counsel for the defendant who remained mute in that regard. For the sake of clarity, I find it pertinent to have the said sections reproduced herein below:- "45. No deed drawn in favour of two or more persons shall be registered unless it expresses whether such persons are 24 joint tenants or tenants in common, and, in the case of a tenancy in common, the share of each co-owner. 69 (1) Where one or two or more joint owners of an estate or interest dies, his name shall be deleted from the land register on the application of any interested person, accompanied by proof of death." The same position is also provided under section 159 (4) (b) the Land Act, Cap 113 Revised Edition, 2019 159 (b) On the death of a joint occupier, his interest shall vest in the surviving occupier or occupiers jointly." According to the transfer documents and sale agreement (PE4) the deceased and plaintiff purchased disputed house at Mbweni area as joint owners denoting that, the said landed property at Mbweni is jointly owned by them. According to https://ornonilelawyer.com/joint-ownership-of-land- what-is-it, the term joint tenancy is defined to mean:- Joint ownership of land simply means when 2 or more people own a piece of land or lands jointly. Any right, benefit, claim or over that piece or parcel of land belongs to the owners jointly and not on an individual basis". This type of ownership of landed properties has its own implications for instance whatever improvement be it a building or uncompleted structure 25 affixed to the land or crops made on the land, forms part of the land that belongs to the joint owners of the land notwithstanding contributions of each owner as opposed to tenancy in common. Therefore, both or all own it. There is also requirement of consent of another or others owners before disposition of property jointly owned. Similarly, where a land is jointly owned by two or more persons like in our present suit in the event one of the joint owners dies, the property is survived by the remaining owner or owners as the case may be that is the deceased's interest automatically passes to the survivors without probate. (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint tenancy). Another implication of this principle of law is that, a joint owner cannot pass the property or a portion of it to his children or survivors and that one joint owner cannot claim ownership or any interest in the land jointly in exclusion of other joint owners. Having discussed as herein above, I consequently find the plaintiff, as the surviving purchaser and occupier of the Mbweni Property which was jointly owned by the plaintiff and Dr. Likwelile who had perished since 2021, is the sole owner of the same. She is thus entitled to be registered as the rightful owner of the Mbweni Property. 26 Now to the 2nd issue, on whether the plaintiff is entitled to 50 % of the landed property at Mpigi-Magohe. It is not in dispute that, both plaintiff and deceased had their own means of incomes as the former Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Finance and as a Special Seat Member of the Parliament respectively. More so, according to the evidence adduced by both sides, the farm in question was originally owned by the deceased. It is further noted that both sides are in the same footing that, the plaintiff might have contributed in one or other to the improvements of the Mpigi- Magohe suit property though currently some of improvements that were fixed may possibly not be there or if there not in order as observed during visitation of the locus in quo. For avoidance of doubts, part of the defendant's response to the question paused to him during cross-examination are reproduced herein under:- "It is wrong to hold that, the plaintiff effected developments in the farm at Mpigi-Magohe except ideas and looking for labour and other related running contributions." Examining the above evidence, I am also of the considered view that, worthy contributions to an acquisition of a property or having an interest to 27 landed property include making developments to such property, ideas or expertise, advice in its improvement, supervision and related duties as rightly testified by the plaintiff. This legal position was emphasized in the case of Gabriel Nimroud Kurwijira vs. Theresia Hassani Malongo, Civil Appeal No 102 of 2018, the Court of Appeal held that "The issue of the extent of the contribution made by each part does not necessarily mean monetary contribution; it can either be property, or work or even advice towards the acquiring of the matrimonial property." For the purpose of the farm at Mpigi-Magohe, the plaintiff though did not produce any purchase receipt of materials neither summoned any fundi or construction technician who he mentioned but in my analysis of evidence adduced by both sides, she must have materially funded or worked towards developments of the Farm in dispute. Nevertheless, as the developments that, possibly made were not of permanent in nature and taking into account that, since their dates of purchase or installation thereto to date, some of assets must have worn out, nature of the determination of the first issue and nature of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as well as the nature of the Mpigi-Magohe property and other cumulative factors in the parties' case, I 28 find it fair and equitable to award the plaintiff nothing to the property at Mpigi-Magoge area. Last but not least on the reliefs the parties are entitled. In the light of the above deliberations, the plaintiff is therefore declared the lawful owner of the suit property at Mbweni JKT and that, she is not entitled to any interest to Mpigi-Magohe property. Given the relationship between the parties and nature of the dispute, the plaintiff is not entitled to general damages as well as costs of the case. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit partly succeeds and partly fails to the above Extent. I therefore proceed making the following orders:- 1. That, the plaintiff is declared the lawful owner of the House on Plot No. 116 Block "3" Mbweni JKT Kinondoni Municipality in Dar salaam Region with Certificate of Title No. 1120554 as the only surviving joint tenant after the demise of the late Dr. Servacius Beda Likwelile 2. The defendant, administrator of the estate of the late Dr. Servacius Beda Likwelile owns 100 % interest unsurveyed land measuring 9.5 acres located at Mpigi-Magohe-Ubungo Municipality in Dar es salaam Region in favour of the deceased's heirs/beneficiaries in exclusion of the plaintiff. 29 3. The defendant or his servants or workers or any other person are permanently restrained from trespassing or occupying the landed property on Plot No. 116 Block "3" Mbweni JKT Kinondoni Municipality in Dar salaam Region with Certificate of Title No. 1120554. 4. Consent Decree and Mediation Settlement Order are incorporated to this decree in that, the house in Plot No. 387 and 389 Block "D" Sinza-Kinondoni is the property of the plaintiff and the house at Kibamba purchased by the plaintiff is declared the property of one Gloria Likwelile 5. Each party shall bear his or her own costs of the suit It is so ordered dated at dar ES salaam, land division this 8th day of April 2025 30