IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

TABORA SUB-REGISTRY

AT TABORA

LAND APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2025

(Arising from Land Application No. 10 of2023 in the District Land and
Housing Tribunalfor Nzega)
1. LINDA CHIKULI ~
2. KIKULI KASEKO “........................................................................ APPELLANTS
3. MUSOMA KASEKOJ

VERSUS

1. MWANUKUZI KASEKO
2. NGOLO KASEKO RESPONDENTS
3. MASHAKA KASEKO

JUDGMENT

9lh April and 12‘h June, 2025

MIRINDO J.:

11 ] This land appeal against the decision of Nzega District Land and Housing Tribunal raises

two procedural points, which if successfully resolved, there will be no justification for considering

the substantive grounds of appeal. Mr. Kelvin Kayaga advocating for the appellants, Linda Chikuli,

Kikuli Kaseko and Musoma Kaseko, obtained leave of the High Court to add an additional ground

of appeal. The complaint in the additional ground is that the proceedings of the trial tribunal are

defective for want of certificate of mediation from a ward tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Mr.

Kayaga noted that mediation certificate from a ward tribunal is a condition precedent for institution

of land disputes before District Land and Housing Tribunals in terms of section 13 (4) of the Land

Disputes Courts Act [Cap. 216 RE 2019] as introduced by section 45 (c) of the Written Laws

1
(Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 3) Act No 5 of 2021. He contended that as no mediation certificate

was admitted before the Nzega Tribunal, the proceedings were a nullity. Mr. Kayaga observed that

the Court of Appeal in Patrick William Magubo v Lilian Peter Kitali (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2019)

[2022] TZCA 44 reached a similar conclusion in respect of certificate of marriage conciliation

board. He pointed out that the High Court in Richard C. Manungu vs Serikali ya Kijiji cha

Lyamalagwa and Others (Land Appeal No 3089 OF 2024) [2024] TZHC 8586 and Raphael Paulo

Chambi v Salum Said Maganga (Land Appeal No 5257 OF 2024) [2025] TZHC 167 extended this

reasoning to ward tribunals mediation certificates not admitted in evidence.

[2] Mr. Salehe Makunga advocated for the first respondent, Mwanukuzi Kaseko while the

second and third respondents, Ngolo Kaseko and Mashaka Kaseko, refused service. Accordingly,

the appeal against them was heard ex parte. Mr. Makunga argued that the mediation certificate

was attached in the pleading and was stamped by Nzega District Land and Housing Tribunal and

those processes served the purpose of conferring jurisdiction.

[3] The case of Patrick William Magubo dealt with a situation where the petitioner for divorce

attached a certificate from a marriage conciliation board and never tendered it in evidence. The

respondent denied appearing before any marriage conciliation board. Under these circumstances,

the Court of Appeal held that the condition precedent for instituting the divorce proceedings was

not complied with.

141 It is clear that the mediation certificate from Kasela Ward Tribunal, annexed to the first

respondent pleading at the trial, was not admitted in evidence. There is no doubt in the instant

appeal that Linda Chikuli, Kikuli Kaseko and Musoma Kaseko (appellants) who were the first,

second and third respondents at Nzega District Land and Housing Tribunal presented their joint

written statement of defence. In their joint defence they admitted at paragraph 9 that the land

2
dispute was submitted for mediation before a ward tribunal as pleaded by Mwanukuzi in paragraph

6 (a) (viii). I understand that Musoma Kaseko and Kikuli Kaseko, were subsequently added to the

proceedings and it was then that they entered the joint defence. It is clear that the land dispute is

mainly between Linda Chikuli and as the joint defence clearly admitted that the dispute went

through mediation process, I have no reason to take a contrary view contended by Mr. Kayaga.

15 ] That said, it is high time District Land and Housing Tribunals consider the requirement of

mediation certificates as a preliminary issue before hearing the main case. Given that most

applicants before the Tribunals are unrepresented who take efforts to annex mediation certificates

in their applications without taking further action of ensuring their admission in Tribunal

proceedings. It is important that Tribunals take it as their bounden duty to guide unrepresented

applicants to tender mediation certificates in the course of the trial.

16J Unfortunately, in the instant appeal, Mwanukuzi was represented by counsel who never

bothered to ensure the admission of supposedly mediation certificate attached in the application.

Luckily, for the reasons given in paragraph 5 the omission was cured by the respondent’s

admission, and the complaint raised by Mr. Kayaga has no merit.

17] The second procedural point arises from the second ground of appeal. The appellants’

complaint is that the trial tribunal denied some of the respondents the right to be heard. Mr. Kayaga

observed that the first respondent, Linda Chikuli, was not accorded an opportunity to defend

herself as she did not testify. Mr. Kayaga admitted that Linda appointed Musoma, the second

respondent, to represent her but this was no reason for denying Linda the opportunity to defend

herself. Mr. Makunga argued that Musoma testified on her behalf and that was sufficient. I think

this complaint is merited. It is clear from the record that it was only Musoma Kaseko and Kikuli

Kaseko who actually testified. While the case proceeded ex parte against Ngolo Kaseko and

3
Mashaka Kaseko, the record is unclear as to why Linda did not testify. The mere fact that Musoma

was her representative was insufficient ground to disqualify her from testifying as was restated by

the Court of Appeal in National Agricultural Food Corporation v Mulbadaw Village Council and

fMe/w [1985] TLR 88 at 91:

A person may act and represent another person, but we know ofno law or legal enactment which

can permit a person to testify in place of another.

181 For the reasons given in connection with the second procedural point, I quash both the

proceedings from the stage where the defence was closed after assessors’ questions on 12th

November 2024 and the resultant judgment and decree of Nzega District Land and Housing

Tribunal. Accordingly, I remand the case to Nzega District Land and Housing Tribunal so that the

first appellant, Linda Chikuli is afforded the opportunity to defence herself and to call witnesses

in support of her defence, if she so wishes. It is ordered that the Tribunal should within thirty days

from the return of this case file resummon the parties for continuation of defence hearing before

the same Chairman and set of assessors if they are still attached to the Tribunal. If they are no

longer attached to the Tribunal, hearing should continue before the present members of the

Tribunal according to law.

191 As the trial proceeded ex parte in respect of some parties, it is important that when the

Tribunal adjourn the case for judgment to notify them the date ofjudgment and their duty to attend.,

In case they do not appear, the Tribunal will be entitled to deliver its judgment as scheduled.

110] Each party to bear its own costs.

DATED at TABORAthis 12th day of June 2025.

4
 FRANK M. MIRINDO
JUDGE

COURT: Judgment delivered in chambers this 12th day of June, 2025 in the presence of for the
appellant’s advocate Mr. Hassan Kilingo holding brief for Advocate Kevin Kayaga and the first
respondent’s advocate, Mr. Salehe Makunga and in the absence of the second and third
respondents.

FRANK M. MIRINDO
JUDGE
12/6/2025