Tanzania Ports Authority vs Alex Msama Mwita (Civil Application No. 196 of 2014) [2017] TZCA 1209 (27 October 2017)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM :(CORAM: LUANDA, J.A., MWARIJA, J,A. And MKVE, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 196 OF 20i4 TANZANIA PORTS AUTHORITY ........... I ................. I I ••••• I ............. ... APPLICANT VERSUS ALEX MSAMA MWITA •••• ■ ••••••••• ii ••• ~ •••••••••••• !!__•.•.!_!! ii ••• ~ ........ Iii •••••••••• I RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution of the Judgment ·arid Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) 11 th & 31 st october, 2017 MKUYE, J.A. (Mgetta, J.) dated the 15 th day of September,. 2012 in Land Appeal No. 55 of 2012 RULING OF.THE COURT . . . - .. ·--- .-·- - . ... . .. , .. ,; ···- ... ----· -- - . This .. applk:ation-·oy notice· of-m0t-ieA--i5-'-9f-Gl:lgJ1t.und.er_ruJ5;tJ 1 (itfl;D_.__c;.c,;-'- ( c) and Rule 48(1) and (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the --=:.:c-==.tles):-the appl·ieant-=is--seeking-sta:y..at&x.ocutpQQk.I9~~~ree of the High . ~~--- .... :-•·:·--:-:-=:.:~.: -;-- Court of Tanzania in Land Appeal No. 55 of 2012 ( Mgetta, J.) dated 15 th day· of September, 2014 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal in the Court. The application is supported by the affidavit of Kokutulage 1

Kazaura filed on 13 th November, 2014. The applicant also filed a written submission in support of the application on 1,3/1/201_5~ The respondent filed an affidavit in reply deponed by Alex Msama Mwita on 6/2/2015 and the written submissio11in reply as per rule 106(8} of I the Rules on 16/2/2015. ·· _ The applicant has premised his application on the following grounds: . . -·- .. - . . . .. - . . . - - . - . . (1) That the applicant has already filed Notice o( Appeal and applied to the Registrar to be supplied with copies of thejudgment de.cref3/ · ·· ,. for purposes of appealing·tathJs:Court·against,:·,,:,t,:::::··/:t:'.::.,::::--:::""7:·:-: *·' . . . . . . . . . . . . . the-said judgment and decree of the High Court··• ·· · _ in Land Appeal No. 55 of 2012 . .. ., · ·· · ·· · - · {2) That -unlessrestrained by -·erdef---ostay--oF -·- - : _________ :-:----· execution/ the Respondent shall cause and continue to cause the judgment and decree-et----- - ~ . •- -· - __ ,. ____ - . . . ~ -- . ---------. -- ------ . --- . . -· ·•·· --- . -· - .,.....,. ...... .... .;..;.;_ =-=-- llJe'=1:Jtstfittc1ntlarrd--r1ovs1nTt1tJ0na7"7Jf.--:- ··· • -- . - - =:= .. ..:-...- ...... - -··- .. ··.:.-..: -·- ;- - - :::-;:;::.r.; .. --;".--:--..::...·-7_;-·,.;.;· . ..-'. __ .::. __ :: ::-: ::=:..:~:.:-_--:-..;:;;s.--:,: :-·-:· · •••• --- _ .• Temeke District which was confirmed by the Trial. High Court to be executed at . the . detriment of the Applicant. (3) That the subject matter of the intended appeal concern a landed propeft½ to wit a property on • - • - - ·- + • - - - -- ·- - - --- - - - - • - . ···-·· ·--··· 2

plot No. 41 Kurasini Area/ Temeke District Dar es Salaam/ which is registered in the name of the Applicant and who was also issued with Certificate of Right of Occupancy No. 46669. If the respondent is allowed and decides to . . . ------=-constructnew·constructions/developments-on--- ·_ - : -· · .:. ----:- - -.-.-· ·-::::·:~:.- · (1). .. . . " ·- --•-., - . . - - - - ... ··:- the said suit property/ and in the event the ' intended appeal succeeds/ any demolitions that .•.•• - -· •>• ···-- ··-· --- -·-··· -·, •- ---••·-., .•• would have ensue follovving · a· ·success· ··on · · appeal will certainly amount into causing irreparable damage and loss on the ~uit land On the contrary th.e_suitpl()t '!~~ ~t.c,IL_times;_:···.· .. ···-···

• been under occupation apd _ ownership of the · ·· ··--·- .... ... . . -
• .. . . ··-· - . . '. . ......... ·····------ ·:..· ;-- . --···. .... . . Applicant. The Respondent sha/J_- __ :uffiif ii0---:--~·;:: /:·-~~ __ -:::/ .. -- - :> ::. injury if the order for- stay-is issued pe~d/nir: - · -,-:•"'.·". --- , ·determination-of the-appeaf·-- ·-.,- -, ,.,,.-,. ·,- .. ,.-:,. ... : : __ ;-. ,. -,,:-.,.~"''-"--- -, ... _ ... , .. , .. ·"·:··"·· . . . . . . . ., . (5) . - That the balance of·convenienceJiesi(rfa_v.:.QlJf'-:--·· --:..--,------- ·-- · -- -- of granting stay than refusing it. • -r •• -- • - •----~ • ,------,.~ • • - • - • ,.,. --- - •-'."". - .,,....__.. ____ .......,.__.... .- •• -~ • •• • --~ • ,,. -• •• -... ...,.......J......-...;..a..;.... :w.i..:.;::.;. ---· . +a.,:.c _ --.,,. ~c:;;;,;.-...:-..,:.,; t --.r-. · m:rr. _ www~~ - -;;,-- a·il . -= 1< m ::-r . -, --.·--= --:,_-c"At-the,.hear~ R§J;0futAe a1313!ieatonr=Mr+laJ-r-i1Matagarte},lea-rnedSnior f ,: :.-,,~-;-,;-- :.: State Attorney assisted by Ms Grina- Aden, learned State Attorney appeared for the applicant while the respondent did not enter appearance. As the 3

respondent failed to appear though duly served, Mr. Matagane was granted I leave to proceed ex-parte under rule 63 (2) of the Rules. Submitting in support of the application, Mr. Matagane, apart from adopting the contents of the affidavit and the written submission in ·support ·- .. .. - ~- .• -•- ... ·-- .... : . . of the application; ·argued that the applicant lod£fedthe n·btice.-:of-appeal and ··.···c'·- .. :: ·, •. •· applied for copies of judgment ·and proceedings to the High Court on

• _ ..... - ..: - : ·-· . ., .. . -• • •••, • • • • •• ••• • • • h,O < • > > • , •• ••••••,; • •• • • •• 22/.9/2014. .He contended further that the-reasorFfi5rtne·ap·pncati6ff-is·as ·· · ··· - --- , shown in para 16 of the affidavit that the applicant is in occupation of the ._ •. _ .......... ,, •.·---··•···•!","-•,"' -· ·-.·.· •·. ·- suit land in which she has been keeping· some materials.for the Port .. If .the ··"--·--::: ,_ ...... application i~ oot granted she will suffer substaritive los·s·because she wiU be required to relocate even before the hear_ing and .. dtermination of the . - .·:· . . . . . .. I and the destruction of land in the course of demolition. As to the security for .... ·- . .. · , •• ,••-=•-•-•••••••••••L,. ,• ... -•I;,,:; __ :;,;.• ... ; .... -:- ..... ' . ~ .... ---:, ~ ·. . . . . . . . . .. ··· --- · -- -~00e ·perf-etma n ce;ofth·e=aecr<ie;l1econtent1ea;:ffi'atin: p,fra:··"20:aftfie"'a"fficf avff=:=-°' ::~~ -::- .;, . . . .. ,,. ~-"--;·-: she has undertaken to deposit security as the. Co1:1rt may determine and· - .. probably by way of Bank Guarantee. He submitted further that the application was lodged without undue delay since it was filed on 13/11/2014 wbile. tbe _notice .of .appeal. had_b.een. filed .. on .. 22/.9./-20.1.4. .... 4 . -·

The issue under consideration by this Court is whether or not the applicant has satisfied the.conditions prescribed under Rule 11 (2) .(.b),(c) I and (d) of the Rules. There are requirements which are mandatorily required to be fulfilled .... ·--·•· .. : by the applicant before this Court exercises its discretion - to order··-stay "of execution. Those requirements are lodgment of the notice of appeal within .. - . - ·-· .. · the. prescribed· time; and showing a gooc,L:cause ·for-the appl"icatio-n· ·· a~ stipulated under as per Rule 11 (2) (b) and (c) ofthe Rules respectively • . ~ ...... - .. '·=- -·- .. -·- . . ••• - -· (See for exam'ple, the cases of Eusto '!9_3.Ji~~a.: .Ys.Ja_~~~-i Fi.sh . . . -- . --. -·-·;-:·. -"' :-: ....... .- ... - . " . . . .. .. ... . . ... . . ·- - --· .... . . . . . ' . Progress· Ltd, Civil Application No 8 of 2011; and Geita Gold Mining Limited Vs Twa"lib Ally-Civil Application No 14of 2_01).(both unreported). . . . .... Al_so, th_e stay of execution cannot be ·-gfanted:· Onless:·:elie- ~coiiditioris _. · ·· -··;· ----: ,·.

• prescribed under Rule 11 (2) ( d) (i) (ii) and {iii}- of:t.h_e: RUie~;-- are ·satisfied. The said provision provides as foUows: • - •- • ., ., .,. ," l ••••• --- - - ......... -· ---· . .. , . . . . - . - ....... ..:,. .:--- ----: .: ;·•··· ..... --.., ·: :i.. _ ,...;.,.,..,____ ---- ~-·:..,._ .... -.--_~ .. -~...... . "( d) 1 No order for stay of execution· shall be made under this rule unless the Court is satisfied (i) That substantial loss may result to the party applying for stay of execution unless the orderismade/ 5

(ii) That the application has been made without unreasonable delay/ and (iii) That security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of such a decree or order as may ultimately be binding:upoii'him~·-''-- - .; ... ;.,..;,:::---·· - ----- •···- ___ ,.;;..._ . .--:--· .-.: ·::.:.-:' - ,,·;,,,.., •.•••••• - .... .-il"li&.AI~, .... . - ::: • : ··•-.::.:;.-:-:::-:i".:::_ .... -.-·- •.• ~ .• ., In the c;:ase of Mtakuja Kondo & Others V Wendo Maliki-Civil . Application No. 74 of 2013 (Unreported) the Cou·rt · emphasizea··-- the· compliance of all requirements laid dowh in law. It-stated: ·· · .

• ., -.,-.•.a.•,••.· -- .• •' .. ····.--,~~-· ., ...... , • .,.,-,•,.·~·-··•·••'•·..,• .. ,.,•,.:..,.,•.,.., :..t-.-..- .. •:-,.•·'""'. ,•,, ,.· :•,·. • ;·•, •. . ··-· ··••-• --•- ........... . '-- the conditions which theapplicantsha:vefo-sat(s/y. - so as to be grantea the order for stay of execution "" ·- -· :· '. . ···- .. ,.,,. ······ .. _ .. : ......... __ ." . . . . -- -· -- ................. --· -·-· .. . are laid out in Rule 11 (2) (b), (c)._ qi7f! (cl) .. All . . . .•. . . . .. . conditions must be satisfied. __ _ The .applicant. must- .. _ ... .. _ .. : _. :: ... ~ .. ·. ••• ~ ,o •••,-•• o• •••, •:• •: • O•h• • •• 0 :• •• ••.-• •-••• - •••• •.••••••••,• •••• they have sufficient cause for praying for the order for stay, the application was filed within time,- they ---· .. ---- . : ·- ·-,:- .·.:.--:--' _ ..... ' ·.· .. ·-·;::.:. --.-'"-····-· will suffer su/Jstantialloss-ifthe-,Order is r-,otgiaAtoo-,· ;__~~ , - 0 •. - ···~ ···· . ·--···· ....... --- .. -,. . ..... -····
• . and they havefurnished security. ,, (See .. also-·_Thero-cl-· ~:::: .::~~- :·: Fredric Vs Abdusamudu Salim Civil Applica"tion· I No. 7 of 2012.)" 6

Also in the case of Mohamed Enterprises (T) Ltd V Mussa _ Shabani Chekechea, Civil Application No. 6.of-2014 (unreported) this Court held that: . . . ·------..- ''In the motion at hancl it is not in dispute that the .. - --· ----- -· --·-·-- -- application for stay of execution was::.todged without - --- ·· ·· ··-·-···· .-.. · reasonable delay as notice of appeal was filed on 10/11/2014 and the present application was filed. ·- ··· ---·---·--·---------·· . ·- .. within a period prescribed in rule ii(2j/cij/iii· ... ·. The .. only qLJestion for determinatfon is whether _ the applicant has availed good cause as-required under - .... _ .. .. .. .. . ........ : . --.- .. ··; - :· :.::.·_ . : ... : .·: .. .. .:.· .. -·· .... - -· ... .. : ... ... -: ·- . . . . . . . . rule 11 (2) (c) of the Rules. Jn .. paragraph'·6-oiihe·:· ... , .. -···:.·:·.---::··:·:~~:·------ ., --·- - ,.--·-~ ... ----•-- affidavit_ the applicant avers that she · will suffer substantial loss and ... " Certainly, what we observe from the above cited authorities is that.the· applicant has to satisfy all the conditions cumulatively and· not disju'nct1vely. . . In this case the __ ju.dgmenLsought to:be...impug_nec:I was deli'vered ·on -- . . •.• • ••.,. ,...,,., ,. .,__,.•., • : •...•• ••· • .. ,.;..· . : . ·• -:. ., ·:--..:.-,.·••---":••·:• _ _.....:..,:,...,,.:.;-:...al~..:;.;-::~; ,. --· --··- .. ··-- ............ --- --- . - .. --· ., 15/9/2014. On 18/9/2014-the applicant -through a letter ·applied--to .. :the-- ----- Registrar High Court (Land Division) . to be furnished with copies• -of proceedings, judgment and decree. On 13/11/2014 she filed an application I for stay of execution through a notice of motion after she had filed a notice 7 -- -- ---·-·

of appeal on 22/9/2014, hence the application was filed within sixty days as required by the law. The applicant has stated in paragraph 12 of the affidavit with regard to the issue of substantial loss that in event the respondent exec:utes the .. . . ,... -·· ......... ----·------•--·. decree and decides to build structures of his ch-ofce, and. the appear ultimately succeeds, the demolition of buildings constructed by the • -- • • ,<- - • • .._ • • • respondent that may ensue would lead to substantial. loss and damage to land. Moreover, in .paragraph 16 of the affidavit the-·:applicar,,t ·has -stated - that she will sffer mostly in event the ordt for· stay Ofexecutioti i(-hqt_ . . issued since it would require her to relocate:even before-the··appeal -is heard .: .. ·.;·.· .. · .. -·· ... ' . .. .. -· .· . ··-·., . and determined. This is so, because she is stiff in. possession of the SUit land --- -- - . .. . .. _and--has.been using it to keep lorries which assemble :before:.eBterjr.ig-.Jrf th_e,------ . . Port. On top of that, in para 17 of the affidavit she ·has averred that if the I respon9ent takes possession and the, ... appeaJ .succeeds, she will -suffer - ... ----- - . -- ··:ifniil-en;i~ in'-tifrmsof incanve.nfe-nces as: s~~:vvi_li'. -e)o-cq t:-va_<.:a-t~~-- __ ·:_~~:.::;.·;;·-=~~---- -· - ------ -- ·-·-·-· .,. .. - --· --- ... - •-..--- - . ----------------------· ---~ -- . - ----·--· - ,.. __ ..., - ----------- But again, according to the affidavital information - and the written submission the matter at hand involves a conflict over ownership of land in which each party claims to be the lawful owner. Whereas the applicant claims 8

to be the legal and registered owner of the suit land Plot No 41 which is comprised in the Certificate of Right of Occupancy No 46669 and that it has I never been transferred to the Government, the respondent claims to have purchased it from one Michael Martin Karata who had initially purchased it from Parastatal Sector Reform Commission (PSRC) after it was specified; As it can be discerned, the matter revolves around a point of law which, we think, would require the Court to resolve it. In our considered view, the applicant has been able to show a good cause and satisfy the Court that she I will suffer substantial loss as per Rule 11(2)(b),( c) and ( d) (i) of the Rules. As regards to security for due performance of the-decree, the applicant has stated in para 20 of the affidavit that she is willing and able to deposit in this Court, any security in the form and manner which the Court may direct. Mr. Matagane added in his submission that they are ready to ·deposit a bank guarantee within a period of two months. We _are of the view that . I • . ' • . • _.. • .: • -- --·-·· . • •. -,- - • the applicant has also satisfied the requirement set out under Rule 11(2) (d) (iii) of the Rules. Under the circumstances, since the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements, we allow the application and order stay of execution of the 9

4 decree of the High Court of Tanzania (Mgetta, J.) in Land Appeal No. 55 of 2012 dated 15/9/2014 so Jong as the applicant deposits in Court a B-ank guarantee of Shs 40,000,000/= (shillings Forty Million only) within thirty days from the date of delivery of this Ruling. ... ....... ------- -· - ··•----,,-· ..... -·--·· . ··•-··-'"•--·-':. ...... :.:::.:::- ______ · ..... · ···-·-. ---- ... ·•·- .. . . Ordered accordingly. .. - '• .. . .. . ·-·•--·----··-·• • •r• ........ i,r.;•, •-' .+• •• - . . . DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 27 th day of October, 2017~ ., : :···· .. ,,., ..... ··- .... ·-· . . .. ---····-- ···- ·····- .... '•-··-· B.M. LUANDA JUSTICE OF APPEAL .. A.G. MWARIJA JUSTICE OF APPEAL .... ..... ..... ,,: . . _ .. ... . , .... :·•-·.- _ .... ·.· --··· _ .. ···- ....... , ...... -. --· '• R.K. MKUYE · ··. :·:"· · ··. ·········· .. :: ·, : ..... :.-· --: . .- ··· ·.: · · - l USTICE .Q.f. APPEAL .. ,,_ .. :·::" "-:'"--:::.··-:t-~ ·::.:::.·:·:.·.:-:::-:-::::.::.::::.::.· :...:.:-::.::-.::' ·::::·: .~ I certify that this is a true copy of the original. ·. ·· .. ·· . ·.···. •··• ,-· :·:c~~-- < ,'~ - •··•• \ >~-- :. . : .. · • · .. A.H. , MI DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 10