20161208 TZHC Dodoma

ffi. IN-THE HJGH COURl OF TANZA-NIA AT.DODOMA ··.,·- ·. '. MISCELLANEOUS LAND CASE APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2012 {From the Decision of the Distticf:Land an·d Housing Tribunal of · ::< · Singida:D.istrictat;Singidc, in Land Case. Appeal No. 131. of 2010 aha;;::.: Original Ward tribunal of Msisi Ward in Application No 03 of 20·10) ,.):i );," 1 YOHANA MAMISI . APPELLANT -.. ,__ -' ·/ , ·. VERSUS •. i 7/11/2016 .. . & 08/1!2/2016 ·' ., ·,, ,,.,·, .,,: I,· ... ! .. : :;;- : ... ·.• This fs o ruling- oh ari':issue Yaised by the Court at the hearing of · YhEi Or\)peol. The issue rc·jisod and tb w·hlch parties were invited to - 'CJddrdss the Ccurt is ·the volidity of the: proceedings of Msisi Word.,<··.· Tribunal~ The rec::1s6rl' that prorhpted: this Court to invite parties.. to ,, ,, ( address it on the validity of Ms_isi Ward Tribunal proceedings is that- it-'·· · .·.· was noted that the proceedings . do no-t' .indicate ' . . the names of the . ' , ' Tribunal rnernbers that sat and heard-the dispute. Both parties being laypersons· h6dr16thing much to assist this Court. The appellant sirnply stated tl'")at Jhere were four members vv·ho saJ- and heord the TribunaL If the names are· not indicated then.·, : it was done by the Ward Tribunal. The respondent said ther~ wer~ . ·1 f c-- m ore than four •rnernbers, including . the . Chairperson and f~the ~ecretary:. - , .•. - - '.... . ' . . . . .\, . ' . . ,; . r= f- lt is trite law that in every sitting of the Ward Tribunal, ~,alf gf its i= members should be pre.sent to form. the quorum. T_his is cl~arly • . ·. . . . . .. - . . . ., ·. r-- provided under Section 4 (3) of th~ Ward Tribunal Act, Cap.

206. It, - , : , , , , . . -f_ ,_ . ~-- provides: r ,_ '. - - ~ '.·. "The quorum at a sitting of a Trib(Jnol shall be one half otthe totol nurnber of n1embers." ·i f . The rnernbers of the Word Tribunol ronge from eight to four!(see ; Section 11 of the·- Land Disputes Courts· Act, Cap. 216). In the mpH~r:: ...,,<; at hond, the n1ernbf~rs of Msisi Ward Tribunal were six as reflectep on, . . i the date vvhen the decision wqs delivered, that is, on 20/1 0ll0l0,. Th(::;refore, in each sitting of Msisi Word Tribunal these six merry be.rs: _· were reqL_Jired to be present . if ot ~ny point in time somf~ .<pf -.its l rnen,bers cou!d not have been present then at least ha_lf f its: rnernbers should have been present for a sitting t~ be v - 1.idly- constituted. It is on record that Msisi Ward. Tribunal sat on v bous,: : dates. It sat on 18/8/20 l 0; 22/09 /20 l 0; 29 /09/201 0; 06/'l 0/201 0; ,and ; 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 vvere present. The failure to indicate names of the Tribunal rnembers in each sitting goes to the. root of the validly constituted Tribunal. Since the names are not indicated then it is not certain as~· 2 \_ . ,'•-1 < ~' • ~ ·_ ··· · to whether the quorum was. reached. or not. The question whet-her. the quorum is reached or :not, had. to be_ determined

first by any - .Tri~una! before cornmencement of any hearing. The issue of quorv:m is so fundan1entaL 1(\s' th~r~;for~ 'risky ~nd .· ~~safe for this Court to· assume that the quorum was reached while- the records do not.. ; indicate so. In view ·of such trreg·ularii"ies, do her~by invoke my revisional .. power under Section 43 (l) (b) of the Land.Disputes Co~rts Act, C<l:p. 216 by quoshing the. whole proceedings of Msisi Ward Tribunal qnd set aside its decisio·n. S:ince 1he decision of the· District Land onq _. Housing "Tribunal is 'fouhd - -from :the··nullity . . decision then 'I proceed tp,._ ·-/;:;.. ·. ·i . ·, · qUosh. its· proceedings oner set 'ds1de ·its decision. I further make· QG •·.; '._. -::,- ·<c)rder fc)i: l"!:'H:) · rnoHer to stc1rl" afresh in con,,.1pliance with the loV✓;.·l·, - ·,• > · · · rnakf~~ h(~:; -·order to costs because the rhischief was occasioned .by>,··· : ' the :ward Tribunal: H ls- s()--ordered~ · ·· -· · . B.M.A Sehel

JUDGE 3 Ruling delivered at'Dodomauhdermy hdnd and seal of the CO\Jrt-" 'this 08t~ c.iay of O<➔ cernber, 2016. in the presence of both pc1rlfes. ·i•_· ·•Rig hf of appeal is fc1lly,{➔xplained to theipdrties.

JUDGE • l 4