IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

TABORA SUB-REGISTRY
AT TABORA
LAND APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2023
{Arising from Land Application No. 56 of2018 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Tabora)

HADIJA KIDO ................................... ..................................... APPELLANT

VERSUS
SALMA MOHAMED............ ..................... . 1st RESPONDENT
ZULFA KIKOKO .......................... ........................... ............. . 2nd RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT
Date of Last Order 15/08/2024
Date of Delivery: 19/09/2024

KADILU, J.

In 2018, the appellant filed a land case in the District Land and Housing
Tribunal (DLHT) for Tabora against the respondents and one other person
who is not a party to this appeal. She alleged that the respondents evicted
her from the house of her late husband, house No. 53 located at Kazima
Road, Isevya Ward within Tabora Municipality. She prayed for the
respondents to be evicted from the suit house and be condemned to pay the
costs of the case.
Having heard both sides, the Hon. Chairman of the DLHT dismissed
the application for lack of merit. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant
filed in this court the instant appeal seeking reversal of the trial tribunal's
decision allegedly because:

1. The learned trial tribunal erred in law and facts when it relied on
extraneous matters and assumptions in dismissing the application
contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record.
i
 2. The learned trial Chairperson erred in law and facts when he imported
an ambiguity that did not exist from the records andproceeded to deny
justice to the appellant contrary to law.
3. The learned trial Chairperson erred in law when he neglected the duty
to address real issues between the parties thereby reaching a wrong
decision.

Before the hearing of the above grounds of appeal, I observed that the
parties before the DLHT were represented by relatives under the powers of
attorney which did not comply with the legal requirements. In particular, the
powers of attorney were registered under the Registration of Documents Act
instead of the Land Registration Act. Therefore, I invited Counsel for the
parties to submit on the observed anomalies. Representing the appellant,
Mr. Kelvin Kayaga, the learned Counsel submitted that the land in dispute is
not registered. It is identified by using house number, and not piot number.
According to the Land Registration Act, the registered land is the one
registered under that Act. The registration of land is proved by the Registrar
of Title's report after the official search or a certificate of a granted right of
occupancy. It consists of the plot number, block number, and the area in
which the land is located.
In the case at hand, the land in dispute is not registered as it does not
have these details. According to Mr. Kelvin, the power of attorney issued by
Khadija Kido was rightly registered under the Registration of Documents Act.
It was not supposed to be registered under the Land Registration Act.
However, the learned Advocate argued that the Power of Attorney issued to
the 1st respondent had no connection with the suit property. For this reason,
he argued that the 1st respondent lacked the locus standi to participate in

2
this dispute from the beginning. This vitiated the proceedings of the District
Land and Housing Tribunal on the aspect of jurisdiction. Mr. Kelvin prayed
for the proceedings of the trial tribunal to be nullified and its judgment and
orders to be quashed and set aside.
Mr. Charles Ayo, also the learned Advocate represented the
respondents. He conceded that the power of attorney issued to the 1st
respondent did not empower him to stand in this case. So, it was an
irregularity for him to stand in the case because he had no legs in
law. Moreover, the parties in this case were living within the jurisdiction of
this court hence, they could not give powers of attorney to the relatives to
prosecute the matter. The Advocate argued that the house in dispute is
registered although it was registered before the advent of the Land Act in
which most of the owners of registered land were given letters of offer.
Before issuing letters of offer, the landed properties were first planned
and surveyed. All registered land owners do pay land rent. It is shown in
this case that the owner of the suit property held the letter of offer and was
paying land rent. For these reasons, the land is registered though there was
no title deed issued for it. Thus, the powers of attorney given to the donee
herein were supposed to be registered under the Land Registration Act as
provided for under Section 96 (1) of the Land Registration Act, [Cap. 334
R.E. 2019]. Since that was not done, Mr. Ayo conceded that the proceedings
of the DLHT were tainted with irregularities and they deserve to be nullified.
In rejoinder, Mr. Kelvin Kayaga stated that the land is deemed to be
registered once its details are entered into the land register not
otherwise. That is why the law is to the effect that payment of land rent is

3
not proof of land ownership. The Land Registration Act currently in use has
been there as the Land Registration Ordinance since 1953. It has just
undergone some amendments but the requirement for land registration has
never changed since then. Mr. Kelvin added that the appellant's power of
attorney was not affected by the requirement for living within the court's
jurisdiction because the donor indicated that he was a resident of Dar es
Salaam.

I have considered the Advocates'submissions and the existing records.

Concerning the powers of attorney, I wish to state that it is a point of law
rooted in the jurisdiction of the DLHT when it determined the dispute before
it. I hold that position because it relates to the locus standi of the parties
herein. It is, for this reason that it must be considered by a court at the
earliest opportunity or once it is raised. Locus standi means, a place of
standing. 5eethe Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edn. (2004) at page 1025.
In the legal context, it means the right to bring an action or to be heard in
a given legal platform or forum. Simply, it is the right or legal capacity to
bring an action or to appear before a court of law.
In the case at hand, Ally Mohamed Salum who purported to represent
the 1st respondent, was neither the owner of the suit property nor was he
given the alleged power of attorney to stand for the 1st respondent.
Therefore, he was a stranger to the case and he remained so throughout
the period that the case was heard by the DLHT. In Lujuna ShubiBalionzi
k Registered Trustees of Chama Cha Ma'pihduzi'\V^C\ TLR 203, it
was held that a person bringing a matter to court should be able to show
that his right or interest has been breached or interfered with. On page 56

4
of the proceedings, it is indicated that the said Aliy Mohamed Salum was
once given the power of attorney to represent the 1st respondent but it was
rejected by the court for being granted to him in contravention of the law.
Thus, the DLHT wrongly proceeded to determine the dispute considering Ally
Mohamed Salum as the legal representative of the 1st respondent.
About the appellant, there are two issues. First, she sued as the
administratrix of the estate of the late Juma Mrisho Mazinge but she did not
indicate so on the names of the parties. Second, she granted a special power
of attorney to Mariam Said Kido to represent her in the case. Nonetheless,
the said power of attorney was registered under the Registration of
Documents Act [Cap. 117 R.E. 2019] instead of the Land Registration Act
[Cap. 334 R.E. 2019].
Section 96 (1) of the Land Registration Act provides:
"The Registrar shall, on the joint application of the donor and the donee
ofa power ofattorney which contains any power to make applications under
this Act to effect dispositions of, or otherwise to act in relation to registered
land, file such power of attorney, and every such application shall be in
writing in the prescribed form and shall be executed and attested in the
manner required for deeds by sections 92 and 93."

Mr. Kelvin argued that the suit property was unregistered so, the power
of attorney was correctly registered under the Registration of Documents
Act. Mr. Ayo was adamant that the property in dispute was registered hence,
it was improper for the power of attorney to be registered under the
Registration of Documents Act. With due respect to the Advocate for the
appellant, the record is very clear that the suit house is registered and it has
a letter of offer. The appellants witnesses tendered property tax payment

5.
receipts (exhibit P4), land rent payment receipts (exhibit P5), and a receipt
for payment of the offer preparation fee (exhibit P6). PW3 testified that the
suit land had a certificate of title but it was lost.
All these details indicate that the suit house was registered. For that
reason, it was mandatory to register the appellant's power of attorney under
the Land Registration Act. In Abduf Rahim Jama! Mohamed (Suing
through his lawful Attorney Fauzia Jama! Mohamed) v. Watumishi
Housing Co. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2021, Court of Appeal at Dar es

Salaam, it was held that:

"Once a person appoints the donee to be a true and lawful attorney on
his behalf to commence, prosecute, defend any action or actions relating to
a registered land by a power of attorney, the said Power ofAttorney has to
be registered under Section 96 (1) of the Land Registration Act [Cap. 334]
and not under the Registration ofDocuments Act [Cap, 117], Ifsuch a power
of attorney is registered under the Registration of Documents Act, it renders
the power of attorney invalid."

Thus, the appellant's power of attorney was ineffectual for being

registered under the wrong legislation since the instant appeal involves a
registered property. In my view, the DLHT committed serious illegality for
hearing the dispute that was prosecuted by the parties who had no locus
standi. The anomaly vitiated the whole proceedings of the DLHT in this case
as I have endeavoured to show. Consequently, I nullify the entire
proceedings, quash and set aside the judgment and decree of the DLHT in
Land Application No. 56 of 2018.1 remit the case file to the DLHT for Tabora
for a speedy retrial before a different Chairperson if the appellant is still

6
interested in pursuing the matter further. No order as to the costs since the
concern was raised by the court suo motto.

Order accordingly.

KADIL MJ.
JUDGE
19/09/2024

The Judgment delivered in chamber on the 19th day of September 2024

in the presence of Mr. Akram Magoti holding brief for Mr. Kelvin Kayaga,
Advocate for the appellant.

ILU; MJ.
JUDGE
19/09/2024.