IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT PAR ES SALAAM

(CORAM: MKUYE. J.A.. KIHWELQ. 3.A. And ISSA. J.A.^

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 278/01 OF 2023

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS
EMMANUEL MARANGAKISI (AS ATTORNEY
OF ANASTANSIOUS ANAGNOSTOU...................................1st RESPONDENT
THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL..... ............................. 2nd RESPONDENT
GEORGIO ANAGNASTOU................................................. 3rd RESPONDENT
OURANIA ANAGNASTOU ...................... .......................... 4™ RESPONDENT
(Application for Revision of the proceedings and Judgment of the High
Court of Tanzania at (Dar es Salaam Registry) at Dar es Salaam)
fTwaib. J.^

Dated the 13th day of May, 2011

in
Civil Case No. 01 of 2011

RULING OF THE COURT

22nd May & 22ndAugust, 2025

MKUYE. J.A.:

This is an application for revision against the decision of the High

Court of Tanzania (Dar es Salaam Registry) (Dr. Twaib, J. as he then was)

dated 13/5/2011 in Civil Case No. 1 of 2011. It is made under section 4

(3) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 (the AJA) and rules 4 (1)

and 65 (1), (2), (3), (4) &(7) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009

(the Rules) and it is supported by an affidavit deponed by Mr. Camilius

Ruhinda, learned Senior State Attorney (as he then was). On the other
side, the 3rd and 4th respondents filed an affidavit in reply sworn by Mr.

Emmanuel Safari, their learned advocate. The 1st and 2nd respondents did

not file their affidavits in reply.

Before embarking on the merit of the application, we find it

appropriate to give albeit briefly, a background of the matter as can be

discerned from the record.

Tine matter has a chequered history. It started in 2006 when Diana

Artenis Ranger, nee Anagnastou Georgio, a lady of Greek origin

(deceased), who was a Tanzanian by naturalization, died intestate on

7/5/2006 at Aga Khan Hospital in Dar es Salaam. Upon her death, she left

behind an estate comprising among others, a landed property situated at

Plot No. 648 Upanga Dar es Salaam registered under a Certificate of Title

No. 186172/28.

It would appear that, the deceased had one surviving heir, one,

Anastasious Anagnastou (her brother) although some information has it

that there were other heirs, Tranis Anagnastou (a niece) and Georgio

Anagnastou (a nephew) but all the three were non-citizens of Tanzania.

According to the record, Anastansious Anagnastou issued power of

attorney to Emmanuel Marangakisi (1st respondent) who petitioned for

letters of administration. However, following a caveat that was raised by

the 3rd and 4th respondents, the High Court declined to grant him the
letters of administration and instead, granted it to the 3rd respondent,

Georgio Anagnastou.

As the 1st respondent was not happy with that outcome, he

appealed to this Court, (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2007), and the Court

revoked the previous appointment (the letters of administration) to the

3rd respondent and appointed the Administrator General (2nd respondent)

under section 33(4) of the Probate and Administration of Estate Act and

section 6 or 9 of the Administrator General (Powers and Functions) Act,

Cap 27, to administer the estate of the deceased.

However, in the course of executing the duties of an administrator,

the 2nd respondent faced difficulties in distributing the suit property as per

the High Court's decision in Civil Case No. 1 of 2011 that the same be

bequeathed to Anastasious Anagnastou while he was a non-citizen of

Tanzania not allowed to own land as per the provisions of section 20 of

the Land Act, Cap. 113 which prohibits non-citizens to own land in

Tanzania except for investment purposes.

It is for this reason that the applicant, who was not a party in the

previous matter (Civil Case No. 1 of 2011) intervened by virtue of duties

vested in her by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and

other laws, and being granted extension of time to file application for
revision through Civil Application No. 138 of 2019, has brought this

application on the following grounds:

1. The Applicant was not party in a Civii Case No. 1 o f 2011

before the High Court o f Tanzania, at Dar es Salaam (Main
Registry), and the suit, which amongst other things affected
the interests o f the Government o f Tanzania.
2. There exists serious illegalities and irregularities in Civii Case
No. 1 o f 2011 which call for immediate intervention o f the
Court o f Appeal in which the interpretation o f section 20 o f
the Land Act [Cap. 113 R.E. 2019] by the High Court of
Tanzania was contrary to the law regarding ownership o f land
by non-citizen o f Tanzania.
3. That, the decision o f the High Court o f Tanzania is contrary to
the Constitution o f the United Republic o f Tanzania, 1977 as
amended, Land Policy o f1997and the Land Act, Cap 113 R.E.
2019 in respect o f ownership o f land by a non-citizen o f
Tanzania.

On the other hand, the 3rd and 4th respondents through an affidavit

in repiy deponed by Mr. Emmanuel Safari averred that following the

decision in Civil Case No. 1 of 2011, the 1st respondent transferred the

suit property by way of sale to one Joseph Gonzalez, however, they

objected the said sale and transfer through Civil Case No. 225 of 2013 to

which on 1/2/2018 the purported sale was nullified by Kitusi, J (as he then

was) and the 2nd respondent was ordered to proceed with administering

the deceased estate.

 It is averred further that it was after the nullification of the

purported sale when the applicant started raising unfounded allegations

that bequeath to the 3rdand 4lt1respondents being foreigners is prohibited

by Land Act. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, the respondents insist that

the Land Act never prohibits bequeath of land to non-citizens and that the

title over the property on Plot No. 648 Upanga, with Certificate Title

Number 186172/28 is a private property acquired long before the

enactment of the Land Act, Cap 113 R.E. 2019, and therefore, its validity

and transmission process is not affected by the Land Act.

When the application was called on for hearing, the applicant was

represented by Mr. Camilius Ruhinda, learned Principal State Attorney

teaming up with Ms. Kause Kilonzo and Mr. Mkama Musalama, both

learned State Attorneys. On the other hand, the 1st respondent did not

enter appearance as he was reported to be no more as per the Death

Certificate issued on 28/9/2021; the 2nd respondent was represented by

Mr. Samwel Cosmas Mutabazi, learned Senior State Attorney; and the 3rd

and 4th respondents had the services of Messrs. Emmanuel Safari and

Joseph Tewa, both learned advocates.

It is worth to note at this juncture that, we decided to proceed with

hearing of the application despite the reported death of the 1st respondent

for a very simple reason that the 1st respondent, having been acting under
a power of attorney issued by Anastansious Anagnastou cannot have a

legal representative as he had nothing to inherit. Moreover, the power of

attorney alone, he had been issued, did not confer to him the suitability

desired to be an administrator.

On being given an opportunity to elaborate the grounds of

application, Mr. Ruhinda began by pointing out that, before the enactment

of the Land Act, Cap 113 (No. 4 of 1999) there was a National Land Policy,

1997, to which, the said Act emanated. He contended that Clause 4.2.4

of the said Land policy, deals with restrictions and in particular, items (iii),

(iv), (v) and (vii) prohibit the non-citizen: one, to be granted land, unless

for investment purpose; and two, to acquire land through transfer or

purchase of customary [and. He added that, section 3 (1) (f) of the Land

Act provides for the fundamental principles of the National Land Policy

which is geared towards ensuring that the interest in land has value and

that value is taken into consideration in any transaction affecting that

interest.

Mr. Ruhinda argued that, in determining the case at hand, the

learned trial Judge centered his attention on grant and transmission of

land but did not deal with interest in land. He went on arguing that,

section 20 of the Land Act specifically provides that non-citizens shall not

be allocated or granted land unless it is for investment purposes under

6
the Tanzania Investment Act. He also, argued that, even Article 24 (1) of

the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, Cap 2 (the

Constitution) guarantees every person a right to own property and

protection in accordance with the law.

In relation to acquisition of land upon death of the owner, Mr.

Ruhinda argued that, the legal representative is, under section 67 of the

Land Registration Act, Cap 334, upon application to the Registrar, entitled

to be registered as owner in place of the deceased.

Mr. Ruhinda argued further that, much as the trial judge framed

issues for determination; he merely discussed the issue relating to transfer

and transmission of land without discussing transmission of land during

inheritance or the issue of interest in land.

Regarding the spirit of section 4 (6) of the Land Act which preserves

the rights in land which was acquired before the commencement of the

Land Act, Mr. Ruhinda in a way conceded that the deceased remained

with her rights even after the enactment of the Land Act and her heirs

would have been entitled to her estate. However, he was quick to state

that transferring and granting ownership to heirs who are not citizen is

prohibited under section 20 of the same Act. On top of that, he contended

that, it offends the National Land Policy and the Constitution of the United

Republic of Tanzania. In support of his argument, he referred us to the

Land Law in Tanzania, Theory and Procedure, 2020 authored by

Tenga R. W. and Mramba S. I. at page 123 which echoed the same

position.

In this regard, Mr. Ruhinda beseeched the Court to grant the

application in the interest of justice.

In reply, Mr. Mutabazi who did not file any affidavit in reply, readily

conceded to what was submitted by Mr. Ruhinda without more.

On his part, Mr. Safari prefaced his submission by declaring his

stance that he was not supporting the application. Having sought to adopt

his affidavit in reply to form part of his oral submission, Mr. Safari assailed

the appearance in Court by the Attorney General while the 2nd respondent

(Administrator General) is an entity under the supervision of the Attorney

General's Office. He was of the view that, this could be a collusion made

by the parties in bad faith against his clients. He prayed, therefore, to

the Court to draw adverse inference against the applicant and dismiss the

application.

The learned advocate also blamed the applicant for concealing some

of the information and not attaching some of the documents such as the

proceedings in Civil Case No 1 of 2011, affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent

and annextures to the plaint and written submission thereof in the

8
application. To fortify his argument, he referred us to the case of

Attorney General v. Oyster Bay Villa Limited and Another, [2017]

T2CA 287, TANZLII, in which the Court ruled out that failure to attach the

necessary document renders the application incompetent and eventually,

struck it out.

In relation to the applicant's contention that there is a Government

interest to serve, Mr. Safari argued that there was nothing showing that

the interest of the Government was affected by the decision sought to be

revised, more so, when taking into account that the applicant was aware

of the matter from the beginning (See: the Judgment Annexure OSG 2).

Mr. Safari argued that under sections 17 (2) (a) and (b) of the Office the

Attorney General (Discharge of Duties) Act, the Attorney General is

allowed to join the proceedings which are already instituted at any stage

even on appeal. He also referred us to the case of Attorney General v.

Mkongo Building and Civil Works and Another, [2020] TZCA 1974,

TANZLII.

He added that para 9 of the supporting affidavit shows that the suit

property belonged to Diana Ranger but surprisingly, the Government of

Tanzania has acquired interest after her death. He submitted that, the

heirs were entitled to the suit property and, therefore, the decision of

Twaib, J. was well founded as it was a right provided for under section 4
(6) of the Land Act. It was his view, that the Government should not

interfere with that right as it is protected. To fortify his argument, Mr.

Safari referred us to the case of Mahendra Kumar Covindji Monani

t/a Anchor Enterprises v. Tata Holding (T) Ltd. & Another [2005]

TZCA 254, TANZLII in which the Court in discussing the effect of

retrospective operation of the statute relied on Maxwell on

Interpretation of Statute, 10th Edition at page 213.

Mr. Safari insisted that the Land Act has nothing to do with Diana

Ranger's estate. He, therefore, prayed to Court to dismiss the application

as it denies the heirs' right to enjoy their right.

In rejoinder, Mr. Ruhinda reiterated what he submitted in chief that

a non-citizen cannot own land as per section 20 (1) of the Land Act which

is the genesis of the interest of the Government being infringed. He

insisted that the law must be interpreted in accordance with what it says

and since the Land Act specifically deals with land matters it should

prevail.

Having examined the application before us, the affidavital

information and the rival submissions from either side, we think, the issue

to be determined by this Court is whether or not the right of occupancy

of the deceased's estate can be bequeathed to a heir who is not a citizen

of Tanzania. While the applicant is of the view that the law prohibits

10
bequeathing of right of occupancy to a non-citizen of Tanzania, the

respondents are of the view that so long as it does not entail grant or

allocation of land, it can be transmitted to him (non-citizen).

Before embarking on the issue, we wish to first comment on two

concerns raised by the learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents.

One, on the complaint of the possibility of collusion by the applicant and

the 2nd respondent as the 2nd respondent is an entity supervised by the

applicant and being entities from the same Ministry.

In the first place, we agree with Mr. Safari that the Office of

Administrator General (RITA) and the Attorney General are entities from

the same Ministry of Constitution and Legal Affairs. Fortunately, this issue

was dealt with in Civil Application No. 138 of 2019 in which it was found

that the two entities have different roles. However, if we may add, the

Administrator General (RITA) is an executive agency within the said

Ministry dealing with multiple of duties including to administer deceased

estates upon being appointed by the court under sections 12 and 17 of

the Administrator General (Powers and Functions) Act, Cap 27 in

situations where such need require as it happened in the matter at hand.

Linder the latter Act, the Administrator General is responsible in

administering estates of deceased persons.

li
 On the other hand, the Attorney General's Office is mainly the chief

advisor of the Government and its departments, National Assembly and

the Judiciary by virtue of Article 59 B of the Constitution and the Office of

Attorney General's Office (Duties and Functions) Act, the law which

mandated her even to intervene in this matter in view of protecting the

interest of Government. As it is, it means that each party became a party

for a specific role. We do not see any indication of collusion. After all, the

learned counsel did not point out any visible collusion by the parties

concerned.

Two, the respondent's complaint that the applicant has concealed

some information as she did not attach some documents to this

application. This concern may have some truth. We are also aware that

in Oyster bay Villa Limited and Another (supra), the Court struck out

the application for failure to attach some necessary document in the

application. But, we think, the circumstances of the two cases are

distinguishable.

Fortunately, this issue was also dealt with in Civil Application No.

138 of 2019. Even if there was such omission, we think, as we have

explained above, since the Attorney General was not a party from the

beginning of this case, such inadvertence cannot be overruled under such

circumstances. In any case, the learned counsel has not explained how

12
his clients have been prejudiced by such omission to include such

documents.

Now back to our basic issue whether a right of occupancy can be

bequeathed to a non-citizen. It is not in dispute that there is no specific

law which provides for bequeath of deceased's property to non-citizens

be it in land laws or the Probate and Administration of Estates Act, Cap

352 (the PAEA). Before the enactment of the Land Act, there was a

National Land Policy,1997. Clause 4.2.4 of the said Policy provides that,

in relation to land allocations, priority shall be given to those with majority

shareholders who are citizens and that non-citizens or foreigners shall not

be granted land except for investment purposes. It also prohibited non­

citizen and foreign companies to acquire land through transfer or

purchase of customary land. In essence the Land Policy was geared

towards protecting land by limiting chances for foreigners to acquire land

in Tanzania.

The National Land Policy was translated into the Land Act which was

enacted in 1999. Section 20 of the Land Act prohibits a non-citizen to

occupy land in Tanzania except for investment purposes. The said section

provides as follows:

"20 (1) For avoidance o f doubt, a non-citizen

shall not be allocated or granted land unless

13
it is for investment purposes under the
Tanzania Investment Act

(2) Land to be designated for investment

purposes under subsection (1), shall be identified,
gazetted and allocated to the Tanzania
Investment Centre which shall create derivative
rights to investors.

(3) For the purposes o f compensation made

pursuant to this Act or any other written law, all
lands acquired by non-citizens prior to the
enactment of this Act, shall be deemed to
have no value except for unexhausted
improvements for which compensation may
be paid under this Act or any other law.

(4) For purposes o f this Act, anybody corporate

o f whose majority shareholders or owners are
non-citizens shall be deemed to be non-citizens or
foreign companies.

(5) At the expiry, termination or extinction o f the

occupancy or derivative right granted to a non­
citizen ora foreign company, reversion o f interests
or rights in and over the land shall vest in the
Tanzania Investment Centre or any other
authority as the Minister may describe in the
Gazette."[Emphasis added]

14
 What we gather from the above cited provision is that, its intent is

to protect the right of occupancy or ownership of land to the citizens of

Tanzania. This can be vividly discerned in the import under subsection

(3) which makes a declaration that all land acquired by non-citizen prior

to enactment of the Land Act to be of no value save for unexhausted

improvements for which compensation may be paid under the Act or any

other written law. But, again, reading section 4 of the Land Act we note

that it vests all land in the President as a trustee as follows:

"(1) AH land in Tanzania shall continue to be public land

and remain vested in the President as trustee for and
on behalf o f all the citizens o f Tanzania."

Subsection (6) of the same section also provides as follows:

(6) Nothing in this section shall be

construed to affect the validity o f any right o f
occupancy lawfully granted or deemed to have
been granted or consented to under the
provisions o f any law in force in Tanzania before
the commencement o f this A c t "

Generally, the gist of this provision is to protect the pre-existing

interests. In essence, we agree with Mr. Safari that retrospective

application of the statute is not to be given to a statute so as to impair

the existing rights or obligation. This stance was taken in the case of The

Hon. Attorney General and Another v. Nassoro Athumani Gogo

15
and Others, [2007] TZCA 241TANZLII, when the Court discussed the

same and stated that:

"A retrospective operation is not to be given to a

statute so as to impair an existing right or
obligation, otherwise than as regards matter o f
procedure; unless that effect cannot be avoided
without doing violence to the language o f the
enactment"

[See also: Mahendra Kumar Covindji Monani t/a Anchor

Enterprises (supra)].

However, much as the said provision protects the pre-existing

interests in land, it applies to citizens and not to non-citizens as they

cannot be granted right of occupancy or deemed to have been granted.

This is by virtue of the provisions of section 20 (3) of the Land Act as it

extinguishes the pre-existing interests in land for non-citizens except for

unexhausted improvements for which they may be compensated as hinted

earlier on.

We are also mindful that section 19 of the Land Act deals with rights

to occupy land. According to subsection (2) of section 19, a person or a

group of persons, whether formed into a corporate body under the

Companies Act or otherwise who is or are non-citizens, including a

corporate body the majority of whose shareholders or owners are non­

16
citizens is/are allowed to obtain right of occupancy for purposes of

investment in terms of the Tanzania Investment Act; or derivative right

for purposes of investment approved under the Tanzania Investment Act

or issued under the Export Processing Zones Act. They are also allowed

to obtain interest in land under partial transfer of interest by a citizen for

purposes of investment approved under the Tanzania Investment Act or

issued under the Export Processing Zones Act in a joint venture to

facilitate compliance with development conditions.

Admittedly, section 19 (2) of the Land Act as alluded above,

provides for among others the manner non-citizens may acquire land be

it in personal capacity, group of persons formed into corporate body or

company which is to be for purposes of investment under Investment Act

or Export Processing Zone Act and not otherwise. It is to be noted that,

the Land Act, does not provide for a situation where a citizen can

bequeath the interest in land to a non-citizen either inter vivo or upon

death. Neither does the PAEA provide for a requirement to the executor

or an administrator in distributing the landed property to take into account

or to have regard to the Land Act. After all, it is understandable that laws

are not to be read in isolation of other laws.

Besides that, section 108 of the PAEA which provides for the general

duties of the administration is silent on distribution of deceased's estate

17
(landed property) to non-citizens. We would think that, this perhaps is

not an accident in view of the provisions of section 181 of the Land Act

which in mandatory terms makes the Land Act to prevail over any other

enactments or provisions applicable to land matters which are in conflict

or inconsistent with it to cease to be applicable to land or any matter

connected with land in Tanzania mainland.

In this case, in granting the right to own land to the respondent,

Anastansious Anagnastou, the trial judge discussed a number of options

which could be invoked in effecting bequeath of suit land to heirs. Among

such options included allocations and grants which are made in the name

of the President as per section 4 (5) of the Land Act. The trial court also

ventured into the definition of "transfer" meaning the passing of right of

occupancy, a lease or mortgage from one party to another by act of the

parties and not by the operation of law as opposed to transmission as

defined under section 2 of the Land Act.

In order to appreciate how the trial court dealt with the matter, we

let a portion of the Judgment speaks for itself as hereunder:

"It is perhaps in order to begin with section 4(6) o f the

Land Act under which all rights in land that have
accrued before its commencement are preserved,
which means that the property o f the deceased's
person are rights that can be and should be inherited

18
 by his/ her heirs. Would it be proper to argue, as the
defendant appears to do herein, that those rights are
to be extinguished upon the rights holder's death
simply because his/ her heirs are non- Tanzanians? The
sub-section stipulates:

(6) Nothing in this section shall be

construed to affect the validity o f any right o f
occupancy lawfully granted or deemed to have
been granted or consented to under the
provisions o f any law in force in Tanzania before
the commencement o f this Act.

I do not think it will be within the spirit o f this provision

to say that a deceased's heir cannot inherit landed
property unless he/she is a Tanzanian...."

In the end, the trial Judge held that a bequeath of the deceased's

property upon his/her death is neither a grant nor an allocation of a right

of occupancy and therefore, it was proper for a bequeath to be made to

the non-citizen.

We do not have any qualms with the trial Judges' observation on

the principle that transmission is among the modes used in passing over

the interest in land of the deceased person to the beneficiary as that is

the spirit of the definition of the word "transmission" under section 2 of

the Land Act. To be specific, the heir or beneficiary in probate matters

can only acquire the right of occupancy by way of transmission and not

19
by other modes like grant, allocation, sale or transfer. The said term is

defined as follows:

"Transmission" means the passing o f a right o f

occupancy, a lease or a mortgage from one person to
another by the operation o flaw on death or insolvency
or otherwise."

It is noteworthy that the above provision seems to be general as it

does say anything regarding the passing of right of occupancy, a lease or

a mortgage to a non-citizen by the operation of law or insolvency.

Be it as it may, the manner transmission of property on death of the

owner can be carried out is provided for under section 67 and 68 of the

Land Registration Act, Cap 334 (the Registration Act). Section 67 states

as follow:

"57. On the death o f the owner ofany estate

or interest, his iegaf personai
representative, on application to the
Registrar in the prescribed form and on
delivery to him an office copy o f the probate o f the
will or fetters o f administration to the estate o f the
owner or o f his appointment under Part VIII o f the
Probate and Administration o f Estate Act or the
Fourth Schedule to the Magistrates Courts Act
shaii be entitied to be registered as owner
in the piace o f the deceased." [Emphasis
added]
20
 It is crystal clear under the above provision that, it is only the legal

personal representative who is entitled to be registered as owner of any

estate or interest after the death of the owner, upon making an

application to the Registrar of Titles as per the dictates of the law.

Besides that, section 68 prohibits assent by the legal representative

to the vesting of any devises of bequest of any registered estate or

interest or disposition to be registered unless the said estate or interest is

registered in the name of the legal personal representative.

Having digressed on the forms of acquiring land and the manner

the estate or interest in land of deceased person can be bequeathed, we

think, we can now tackle the main issue of whether the right of occupancy

or interest can be transmitted to the heir or beneficiary who is a non­

citizen.

In our view, our answer is No! Reading section 2 of the Land Act

together with sections 67 and 68 of the Land Registration Act, interest in

land of the deceased can only be bequethed to heirs or beneficiaries

through transmission after having been registered in the name of the legal

representative of the deceased. As to who will benefit, section 20(1) of

the Land Act explicitly prohibits such transmission to non-citizen.

According to the said provision of the law, it only permits a non-citizen to

occupy land for investment purposes under the Tanzania Investment Act.
21
It follows therefore, in our considered view that, as the transmission under

section 67 of the Land Registration Act gives the beneficiary the right to

occupy and use land; and since right to be given in relation to probate

matters does not relate in any how with investment purposes, a non­

citizen cannot inherit landed property in Tanzania. Doing so would be to

circumvent the spirit in section 20 (1) of the Land Act.

In reaching to that stance, we are guided by the case of Katani A.

Katani v. Returning Officer Tandahimba District and 2 Others,

[2012] TZCA 8, TANZLII, in which the Court in interpretating section 111

of the National Elections Act, Cap. 343 relied on the Book of G. P.L Singh

titled Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Tenth Edition 2006 and

stated as follows:

"When the question arises as to the meaning o f a

certain provision in statute, it is not oniy legitimate
but proper to read that provision in its
context. The content here means, the statute as
a whole, the previous state o f the law, other
statutes in pari materia, the general scope o f the
statute and the mischief that was intended to
remedy. "[Em phasis added]

As it is, looking at the provisions of section 20 (1) of the Land Act

in its totality, we are of a considered view that its intent was to prohibit

non-citizens to occupy and use land in any manner save for investment

22
purposes only. It is our view that, had the trial Judge invoked the above

principle of statutory interpretation, on the mischief that was intended to

cure, perhaps he would not have arrived to the conclusion he made.

We have also examined the manner the provision is couched, and

we think, it still cements what we have observed. It states:

"For avoidance o f doubt, a non-citizen shaft

not be allocated or granted land unless it is
for investment purpose under the Tanzania
Investment Act "[Emphasis added]

As it is, there is no doubt that it ousts away in the uncertain terms

land ownership to non-citizen. We have also taken note on Mr. Safari's

submission on the manner the law should be interpreted. We agree with

his argument on the operationalization of the law retrospectively as stated

in the case of Mahendra Kumar Govindji Monani T/A Anchor

Enterprises (supra) that in principle the statute should not be interpreted

retrospective. And, in our case that is not the situation as the law is quite

settled because much as the deceased property may be transmitted where

it is registered by legal representative of the deceased, still, it has to

bequeathed to Tanzanian citizens and not the non- citizens as stated

above.

We, therefore, answer the issue we had posed earlier on in the

negative.

23
 In this regard, we find that the application is merited and we grant

it. We therefore, quash the judgment and set aside the decree thereof.

DATED at DODOMA this 20th day of August, 2025.

R. K. MKUYE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

P. F. KIHWELO
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

A. A. ISSA
JUSTICE OF APPEAL

The Ruling delivered this 22nd day of August, 2025 through Virtual

Court in the presence of Mr. Camilius Ruhinda, learned Principal State

Attorney assisted by Mr. Mkama Musalama, learned State Attorney for the

Applicant, Mr. Swalehe Njoma, learned State Attorney for the 2nd

Respondent, the 3rdand 4th Respondents together with their Advocate Mr.

Emmanuel Safari, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original.

24