IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(LAND DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
LAND APPEAL NO.136 OF 2016
(Originating from the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mkuranga in Land
Appeal No. 30 of 2016)

HERBERT ROGERS MWAIMU............................................ APPELLANT

VERSUS

ABDALLAH CHUMU YUSUFU............................................ RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Date of Last Order: 28.06.2021

Date of Ruling: 20.07.2021

A.Z.MGEYEKWA, J

This is a second appeal. The matter originates from Vikindu Ward

Tribunal in Civil Case No. 02 of 2016. At the centre of controversy between

the parties to this appeal is a parcel of land. The appellate tribunal determined

the matter and

i
 2

The material background facts to the dispute are as follows: The

respondent was the complainant at the Ward Tribunal, he successfully

claimed ownership of a piece of land located at Ngunguti hamlet in Vikindu

village within Mkuranga District. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal

before the District Land and Housing Tribunal. The decision from which this

appeal stems is the judgment of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for

Mkuranga in Land Application No. 30 of 2016.

Undeterred, the appellant has come to this Court seeking to assail the

decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mkuranga on four

grounds of grievance; namely:-

1. That the trial tribunal erred in law by failing to determine a fundamental

issue of Jurisdiction which was one of the grounds of Appeal before it.

2. That the trial tribunal without any reason grossly erred in law by failing to

consider and determine each and even ground of appeal raised.

3. That the trial tribunal further erred in law by failing to account any weight

to the evidence tendered before it.

4. That the trial tribunal further emed in law by failing to provide the opinion

of the assessors.

2
 3

When the matter was called for hearing before this court on 20th April,

2021, the court ordered the parties to argue the appeal by way of written

submissions whereas, the appellant’s Advocate filed his submission in chief

on 26th May, 2021 and the respondent Advocate filed his reply on 21st April,

2021. The appellant’s Advocate waived his right to file a rejoinder.

The appellant was the first one to kick the ball rolling. He opted to submit

on one ground and dropped the remaining grounds. The appellant argued

that the tribunal erred to rule that there was adverse possession, while the

records show that the dispute between the parties started before 2016. He

also blamed the District Land and Housing Tribunal for failure to consider and

determine each ground of appeal.

The appellant continued to submit that the respondent admitted that the

dispute existed since 2014. To support his submission he referred this court

to page 2 paragraph 1 of the tribunal proceedings. It was his view that the

issue of adverse possession was sustained without any justification. To

bolster his submission he cited the case of Moses v Lovegrove (1952) QB,

and Hughes v Griffin (1969) 1 All ER 460 where it was held that:-

“a person seeking to acquire title to land by adverse possession had

to cumulatively prove the followings;-

f) That the statutory period, in this case, twelve years has lapsed

3
 4

g) That there had been no interruption to the adverse possession

throughout the aforesaid statutory period.

The appellant continued to argue that the Chairman wrongly observed

that from 2004 to 2016 is twelve years, which under the doctrine of adverse

possession the respondent became the owner of the suit land as lightly found

by the trial tribunal.

On the strength of the above submission, the appellant beckoned upon

this court to allow the appeal with costs.

The respondents’ confutation was strenuous. The learned counsel for the

respondent came out forcefully and defended the trial court’s decision as

sound and reasoned. The respondents came out forcefully and defended the

trial tribunal’s decision as sound and reasoned.

The respondent argued that the Ward Tribunal determined the fact in

issue that the appellant wrongly sold the land which belonged to the

respondent. He went on to state that the appellant trespassed into the

respondent’s land and sold it to Henrick Elimelick Mgaya. He further

contended that since the respondent occupied the suit land since 2004

without being interrupted then by the time the appellant sold the suit land in

2016 he was barred by the law of limitation because the 12 years had lapsed.

4
 5

The respondent valiantly argued that the appellant did not institute any

dispute until 2016 when the respondent filed a suit at the Ward Tribunal.

On the strength of the above submission, the learned counsel for the

respondent contended that the appellant failed to exercise his right (if any)

rightly invoked by the tribunal and the appeal was rightly dismissed by the

tribunal.

Having heard the submissions of both parties simultaneous with carrying

a thorough review of the original record, I wish to state from the outset that I

wish to begin with the third and fourth grounds which in my view if decided in

the positive, are sufficient to dispose of the entire appeal for reasons which

will unfold in the course. I have gone through the original proceedings and I

fully subscribe to the appellant's submission that the assessors' opinions

were not recorded

I have gone through the handwritten proceeding of District Land and

Housing Tribunal for Mkuranga specifically on the last pages the records do

not show that the assessors stated their opinion instead the Chairman

proceeded to set a date for delivering a judgment on 10th August, 2016 and

on 20th August, 2016 the Chairman delivered the judgment and

acknowledged on page 4 of his judgment that they concur with the

5
 6

unanimous opinions of both assessors. It is not seen anywhere the assessors

being invited to issue their written opinion as required under the law, or the

said opinion being read before the parties and recorded in the proceedings

as required under the law. The act of the trial Chairman to record the

assessors’ opinion without record the same was contrary to Regulation 19

(1) of the Land Dispute Courts (The District and Housing Tribunal)

Regulations, 2003 GN. 174 of 2003. The Chairman has to require every

assessor present at the conclusion of the hearing to give his opinion in writing

before making his judgment and the opinion be recorded in the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal of Tanzania in numerous cases stated that the

assessors' opinion must be expressly indicated in the record. In the case of

Hamisa S. Mohs in v Taningra Contractor Land Appeal No. 133 of 2009

where the Chairman did not indicate what opinioned, the judgment was null

and void and in the case of Edina Adam Kibona v Absolom Swebe (Sheli),

Civil Appeal No. 286 of 2017 it was held that:-

"... the opinion of assessors must be given in writing and be reflected

in the proceedings before a final verdict is issued”.

Equally, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Ameir Mbarak and

Azania Bank Corp Ltd v Edgar Kahwili, Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2015

(unreported) held that:-

6
 7

“Therefore in our considered view, it is unsafe to assume the opinion of

assessors which is not on the record by merely reading the

acknowledgment of the Chairman in the judgment. In the

circumstances, we are of a considered view that assessors did not give

any opinion for consideration in the preparation of the Tribunal's

judgment and this was a serious irregularity."

Similarly, in the case of Tubone M warn beta v. Mbeya City Council, Civil

Appeal No 287 of 2017 (unreported), the Court of Appeal of Tanzania stated

that:-

“In view of the settled position of the law, where the trial has been

conducted with the aid of the assessors,...they must actively and

effectively participate in the proceedings so as to make meaningfully

their role of giving their opinion before the judgment is

composed...since regulation 19(2) of the Regulations requires every

assessor present at the trial at the conclusion of the hearing to give his

opinion in writing, such opinion must be availed in the presence of the

parties so as to enable them to know the nature of the opinion and

whether Page 4 of 6 or not such opinion has been considered by the

Chairman in the final verdict."

The Court further held that:

7
 8

"For the avoidance of doubt, we are aware that in the instant case the

original record has the opinion of assessors in writing which the

chairman of the District Land and Housing Tribunal purports to refer

to them in his judgment. However, in the view of the fact that the

records do not show that the assessors were required to give them,

we fail to understand how and at what stage they found their way into

the Court record. And in further view of the fact that they were not

read in the presence of the parties before the judgment was

composed, the same has no useful purpose."

Inspired by the incisive decisions quoted above, applying the same in the

instant appeal, it is evident that a fundamental irregularity was committed by

the tribunal Chairman. I shall not consider the remaining grounds of appeal

as the same shall academic exercise.

From the above findings and analysis, I invoke the provision of section 43

(1), (b) of the Land Dispute Courts Act, Cap. 216 which vests revisional

powers to this court and proceed to revise the proceedings of the District

Land and Housing Tribunal for Mkuranga in Appeal No. 30 Of 2016 in the

following manner: -

(i) The proceedings in Appeal No. 30 Of 2016 and the orders made

thereof are hereby quashed.

8
 9

(ii) I remit the case file to the District Land and Housing Tribunal for

Mkuranga, before a different Chairperson and the same set of

assessors.

(iii) The matter to proceed at the District Land and Housing Tribunal for

Mkuranga before another Chairman within 8 months.No order as to

costs.

Order accordingly.

Dated at Dar es Salaam this date 20th July, 2021.

A.Z.MG KWA
JUDGE
20.07.2021

Judgment delivered on 20th July, 2021 in the presence of both parties.

A.Z.MGEYEKWA
JUDGE
20.07.2021

Right of Appeal fully explained.

9
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA
(LAND DIVISION)
AT PAR ES SALAAM
LAND APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2020
(Arising from the Judgment and Decree of the District Land and Housing
Tribunal for Kilombero and Ulanga and Malinyi Districts at Ifakara, in
Land Application No. 41 of 2018, by Hon. Kamugisha)

TABU MOHAMED SAADAN................................................. APPELLANT

VERSUS

ISSA MAGWILA (in person and in the capacity as the

Administrator of Estate of the Late Minisha Mohamed..... RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Date of last Order: 04.08.2021

Date of Judgment: 11.08.2021

A.Z.MGEYEKWA

This appeal is against the Judgment and Decree of the District Land

and Housing Tribunal for Kilomero I Ulanga at Ifakara, in Applications

No.41 of 2018. The material background facts to the dispute are not

difficult to comprehend. They go thus: The respondent on his own

capacity and in the capacity of the administrator of the estate of Minisha

i
Saadan filed a suit at the District Land Housing Tribunal against the

appellant calcimining for land ownership of the house situated at Lumemo

area within Ifakara Township in Kilombero District. The respondent

contended that the landed property was constructed in the clan land. He

claimed that the ownership passed by survivorship from one generation

to another and he is the current owner of the suit property. On her side,

the appellant contended that the suit property belonged to her mother

one Zuhura Issa Milandu who passed away. The appellant claimed that

she is the administrator of the estate of the late Zuhura Issa Milandu. She

claimed that her late mother has never been a licensee instead she

occupied the suit property and build a permanent house therein.

After the determination of the case, the trial tribunal decided in favour

of the respondent The Chairman dismissed the appellant’s claims and

declared the respondent the lawful owner of the suit land on the ground

that the applicant did not prove her ownership. Being aggrieved with the

tribunal decision, the appellant came before this court praying for this

court to allow the appeal, quash and set aside the Judgment and Decree

of the trial tribunal with costs. The appellant raised six grounds of

grievance, namely:-

1. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law and fact for

holding that, the appellant's mother was a mere licensee despite the

2
 fact that, the respondent by his own will allocated his disputed land to

the appellant's mother in 1970.

2. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erroneously held in favour

of the respondent despite the fact that the disputed land has been

occupied by the appellant’s mother in 1970.

3. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erroneously held in favour

of the respondent despite the fact that the disputed land has been in

possession of the Appellant for 20 years since the demise of the

respondent’s mother in law.

4. The trial District Land and Housing Tribunal erroneously held in favor

of the respondent despite the fact that the appellant built a house for

her Mother without any claim of ownership over the disputed land from

the respondent.

5. That, the Chairman of the trial tribunal erred in law and fact for reaching

judgment basing on inconsistent and contradictory evidence.

6. That, the trial District Land and Housing Tribunal failed to assess,

analyze and evaluate evidence on record hence it came up with the

wrong conclusions.

The merit of the appeal was addressed by way of written submissions.

When the matter was called for hearing on 17th March, 2021, the appellant

enjoyed the legal service of Mr. Simon Lameck Mpina, learned counsel

3
while the respondent enjoyed the legal service of Mr. Barnaba Lugua

learned counsel. The appellant filed his submission in chief on 16th April,

2021 and the respondent's Advocate to file a reply on 17th May, 2021 and

the appellant’s Advocate filed a rejoinder on 31st May, 2021. However, the

respondent’s Advocate for his own reasons filed his reply on 21st May,

2021 out of time without applying for extension of time. Therefore, this

court proceeded to grant the appellant’s Advocate request to determine

the matter exparte against the respondent.

Supporting the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant opted to

combine and argue all grounds of appeal generally. On his view all

grounds of appeal hinged on one question of proper analysis and

evaluation of evidence. The issue for determination was whether the trial

tribunal’s judgment in favour of the respondent was supported by

evidence.

The learned counsel for the appellant started with a brief background of

the facts which led to the instant appeal which I am going to summarize

his submission as follows;

He claimed that the disputed land originally belonged to the respondent.

In 1970 the respondent gave his in law, the appellant’s mother. She further

submitted that the appellant’s mother stayed in the suit land for a long time

without any disturbance from the respondent until her demise in 1995. He

4
went on to state that after her demise, the suit land remained with the

appellant for 20 years until 2016 when the dispute over the suit property

erupted.

Mr. Mpina continued to argue that the appellant is an Administratrix of

the estate of her late mother who died in 1995 leaving behind the suit

property. It was his view that the appellant as a successor of her late

mother is entitled to whatever belonged to her mother including the suit

land that was granted to her mother by the respondent in which the

applicant made some efforts to improve the house therein.

The learned counsel for the Appellant went on submitting that the suit

land belonged to her as the successor of her late mother, who had

obtained the same from the respondent for free. And that the appellant’s

mother was not a mere licensee to the respondent as there were no

instructions from the respondent to the appellant’s mother in possessing

the suit land.

Mr. Mpina further lamented that had it been licensee to the respondent

the appellant’s mother and appellant herself would not have stayed in the

suit land without any interference or directives from the respondent in

which the appellant’s stayed for more than 40 years. He added that and

the appellant was in possession of the suit land for 20 years from the

5
demise of her late mother, hence that the issue of adverse possession

comes in favour of the appellant.

On the strength of the above submission, Mr. Mpina faulted the trial

tribunal decision for deciding in favour of the respondent because he had

a better title to the suit property.

After a careful perusal of the record of the case and the final

submissions submitted by both parties. In determining the appeal, the

central issue is whether the appellant had sufficient advanced reasons to

warrant this court to overrule the findings of the District Land and Housing

Tribunal for Kilombero.

In my determination, I will consolidate all grounds of appeal because

they are intertwined. The appellant is complaining that the tribunal failed

to analyse and evaluate the evidence on record. I have perused the

respondent’s evidence he claimed that he is the lawful owner of the suit

landed property. He claimed that he allocated the disputed house to his

mother in law as a licensee until she passed away. The appellant also

claims that she is the lawful owner since her mother lived in the suit land

for more than 20 years. Both parties agreed that the suit land originally

belonged to the respondent one Issa Magwila, the respondent It is the

respondent who invited the appellant’s mother to stay in his land upon the

respondent being married to the appellant's sister. Therefore, as long as

appellant was duty-bound to prove that her mother was not a mere

licensee by proving the transfer of ownership from the respondent to

Zuhura Mirandu otherwise the issue of the appellant's ownership cannot

arise.

The main issue for determination as discussed by the trial Chairman in

Application No. 41 of 2018 is who is the lawful owner of the land in

dispute? Reading the tribunal records, I have noted that the Chairman

determined the matter on page 6 para 1 where he stated that:-

"In the absence of the clear evidence to prove disposition of the

suit land from the applicant to the respondent’s mother the same

remains in the ownership of the applicant”.

I fully subscribe to the Chairman findings, the appellant was required

to prove the disposition of the suit landed property from Issa Magwila to

Zuhura Mirandu. I have perused the tribunal records, there was no

evidence to show the transfer of ownership from the respondent to the

late Zuhura Mirandu and there was no evidence to prove that transfer was

effected from the late Zuhura Mirandu to Tabu Mohamed Sadan, the

appellant. The appellant has admitted that the suit property belonged to

her mother thus she has no legal base to claim ownership over a property

that did not belong to her. There was a need for the appellant to adduce

7
sufficient evidence to show how the suit land was transferred from the

respondent to the appellant's mother for the appellant to obtain a better

title.

Additionally, I differ with Mr. Mpina observation that the appellant

obtained the suit property after staying in the suit land for more than 20

years without being disturbed. The licensee used the suit land on behalf

of the owner, therefore, there is no any automatic transfer from the

licensee to the occupier. In other words, the late Zuhura Mirandu was a

licensee, not an occupier, therefore, the doctrine of adverse possession

is inapplicable in this case. It is worth noting that there is no time limit for

the licensee to use the land until when the owner demands his land.

Therefore, the appellant cannot come before this court claiming ownership

over a piece of land that was not in her possession.

In my view, the appellant ought to have proved her ownership as to

how the suit land was transferred from the respondent to her mother for

the appellant to obtain a better title. Failure by the appellant to produce

tangible evidence to prove her ownership of the suit land is marked failure

to her side.

For the reasons given above and as stated earlier, one of the canon

principles of civil justice is for the person who alleges to prove his

allegation. The same was held in the case of Abdul Karim Haji v

8
Raymond Nchimbi Alois and Another, Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2004

(unreported) the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held that:-

"...It is an elementary principle that he who alleges is the one

responsible to prove his allegations."

Applying the above authority of the law, I do not think the appellant

proved his claims to the required standard of the law.

For the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied that, in the instant appeal,

there are no extraordinary circumstances that require me to interfere with

the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kilombero findings. Therefore,

I find that this appeal is without merit because the appellant did not prove

to the required standards her ownership to the suit property. I therefore

dismiss this appeal without costs.

Order accordingly.

Dated at Dar es Salaam this date 11th August, 2021.

A.Z.MGEYEKWA
A
JUDGE
11.08.2021

Judgment delivered on 11th August, 2021 via audio teleconference

whereas both parties were remotely present.

9
 A.Z.MGEYEKWA
JUDGE
11.08.2021

Right of Appeal fully explained.

10