yohana hamisi vs jumanne ngwadi 2016 tzhc 2239 8 december 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA MISCELLANEOUS LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2012 (From the Decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Singida District at Singida in Land Case Appeal No, 131 of 2010 and Original Ward tribunal of Msisi Ward in Application No 03 of 2010) YOHANA HAMISI .................... APPELLANT VERSUS JUMANNE NG’WAOI ................... . RESPONDENT RULING 17 / 11/ 2016 & 08 / 12/ 2016-. SEH EL J. This is a ruling on an issue raised by the Court at the hearing of the appeal. Trie issue raised and to which parties were invited to address the Court is the validity ot the'proceedings of Msisi Ward, Tribunal. The reason' that prompted" this Court to invite parties to address it on the? validity of Msisi Ward Tribunal proceedings is that it was noted that the proceedings do not .indicate the names of the Tribunal members that sat and heard the dispute. Both parties being laypersons had nothing much to assist this Court. The appellant simply stated that there were four members who sat and heard the Tribunal. If the names are not indicated then it was done by the Ward Tribunal. The respondent said there were. i more than four members including the Chairperson and r the Secretary. ! r It is trite law that in every sitting of the Ward Tribunal, half pf its i members should be present to form the quorum. This is clearly # • f provided under Section 4 (3) of the Ward Tribunal Act, Cap. 206. It [ provides: ; “The quorum at a sitting of a Tribunal shall be one half o the total number of members.” ’ The members of the Ward Tribunal range from eight to fourifsee • f Section 11 of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216). In the mptfer at hand, the members of Msisi Ward Tribunal were six as reflected on i the date when the decision was delivered, that is, on 20/10/^010. Therefore, in each sitting of Msisi Ward Tribunal these six members were required to be present if at any point in time some .of its ! members could not have been present then at least half of its members should have been present for a sitting to be validly- constituted. if is on record that Msisi Ward Tribunal sat on vcrious dates. It sat on 18/8/2010; 22/09/2010; 29/09/2010; 06/10/2010;land 20/10/2010. Unfortunately in all these sittings that Msisi Ward Tribunal sat and heard the dispute do hot reflect the number of members who were present. The failure to indicate names of the Tribunal members in each sitting goes to the root of the validly constituted Tribunal. Since the names are not indicated then it is not certain as to whether the quorum was reached or not. The question whether the quorum is reached or not, had to be determined first by any Tribunal before commencement of any hearing. The issue of quorum is so fundamental. It is therefore risky and unsafe for this Court to assume that the quorum was reached w hile-the records do not indicate so. In view of such irregularities, I do hereby invoke my revisional power under Section 43 (1) (b) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216 by quashing the whole proceedings of Msisi Ward Tribunal and set aside its decision. Since the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal is found from the nullity decision then I proceed to quash, its proceedings and'set aside its decision. I further make an order for I he matter to start afresh in compliance with the law.-I make no order to costs because the mischief was occasioned by the Ward Tribunal, it is so-ordered. ■ ' DATEP,q.t:.Dodoma this 08th day of December, 201 6. ■i B.M.A Sehel JUDGE Ruling delivered at Dodoma under my hand and seal of the court, this 08th day of December, 2016 in the presence of both parties. Right of appeal is folly explained to the parties. B.M.A Sehel JUDGE 08th December, 2016. 4