MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPEAL NO 27920 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC Of TANZANIA (K IGO M A S U B -R E G IS T R Y )

A T K IG O M A MISCELLANEOUS LAND APPEAL NO. 27920 Of 2024 VONA KATELI 1st APPELLANT HURUMA MATHAYO 2nd APPELLANT

VE R SU S

ARUFANI JUMA RESPONDENT (Appeal from the ruling and drawn order of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kigoma at Kigoma) (Maurice Egbert Sekabila, Chairperson) Dated 16th day of March 2023 In (Miscellaneous Land Application No. 4 of 2023)

JU D GM E N T Date: 29/05/ & 10/07/2024 NKWABI, J.: Under the provisions of section 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act Cap. 89 R.E. 2019, the appellants unsuccessfully moved the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kigoma for extension of time within which to enable the applicants therein to file a revision proceeding against the proceedings and judgment of the Ward Tribunal for Kateli in Land case No. 22 of 2021. They also prayed for costs. The grounds were that the judgment of the Ward Tribunal was illegal for the secretary to the ward tribunal signed it as a member contrary to the law and the respondent had no locus stand to sue 1 as was not an administrator of the estate of his late father whose property was subject to the controversy in the ward tribunal. In the ruling, the learned chairperson dismissed the application for failure by the appellants to account for each day of the delay maintaining that there was an appeal that was withdrawn by the appellants on 23/09/2022. For reasons that will become evident pretty soon, I am not going to deal with the grounds of appeal. I appreciate both parties filed written submissions for and against this appeal. The counsel for the appellants, Mr. Masendeka Anania Ndayanse, vehemently indicated in his submission that the appeal is merited due to the alleged illegalities indicated above. The respondent is not convinced so, he

strongly resists this appeal. He filed the submissions on his own, without a representation. The appellants are determined to pursue a revision, in the district land and housing tribunal against the proceedings and judgment of the ward tribunal which they impugn on reasons of illegality in that the secretary to the tribunal illegally signed on the judgment as a member and the respondent had no locus standi to sue. 2 But is the avenue (revision) intended to be pursued by the appellants not illegal? If it is illegal even if the appeal is merited, any relief I would grant would be of no use, and in fact it would prolong the litigation without a good ground . In this Miscellaneous Land Appeal, one may be fascinated and probe and indeed, I asked the parties to address me on the same, "Could the appellants be allowed to prosecute the intended revision despite there being an avenue of appeal against the decision of the Ward Tribunal?" Would that revision survive a preliminary objection banging against its way if preferred? The answer to the above questions could be seen in the decision in Transport Equipment Ltd. v. Devram P. Valambia [1995] T.L.R. 161 where it was underlined that: ''Except under special arcumsteoces, a party to a proceeding in the High Court cannot invoke the revisionaljurisdiction of the Court as an alternative to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. // There is

also the same stand view held in the case of Augustino Lyatonga Mrema v. Republic & Another [1996] T.L.R. 267 where it was categorically stated that: 3 "To invoke the Court of Appeal powers of revision there should be no right of appeal on the matter the purpose of this condition is to prevent the power of revision being used as an alternative to appeal, H Thus, this appeal which seeks to clear a way for a revision application in the District Land and Housing Tribunal is, therefore, incompetent because there is an avenue to address the grievances held the appellants that is provided by the law which is an appeal in the District Land and Housing Tribunal. In the same vein, the appellants cannot invoke the revision powers of the district land and housing tribunal where the tribunal has appellate jurisdiction. This appeal, therefore is a short in the air with no desirable outcome to the appellants. Even if the trial tribunal heard the land case ex-parte as claimed by the appellants, they would have applied for setting aside the ex-parte judgment if they were certain that the order for hearing ex-parte was obtained by the respondent on insufficient ground or that they had sufficient reason(s) for their failure to appear, else, they ought to have pursued an appeal. In any way all the grounds advanced for impugning the trial court's proceedings 4 and judgment do not bear out the claim of the appellants that the land case was heard ex-parte by the trial tribunal. Established on the above deliberation, I conclude by striking out this appeal for being incompetent. Each party shall bear their own costs because the ground that led to the outcome of this appeal has been raised by the Court suo motu. It is so ordered. DATED at KIGOMA this 10th day of July, 2024. J. F. NKWABI

JUDGE 5