Hamisi Msunge vs Hawa Hassani Mtumwa (Civil Application No. 105 of 2014) [2017] TZCA 1205 (18 October 2017)

'. . ."'f' ·.,.,..., (; . ·: •.,' . . ' ' ·.:. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF. TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM. (CORAM: LUANDA, J.A., MWARIJA, J.A. l\nd MKUYE,J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION N0 .. 105 OF 2014 .1-1AMISI MSUNGE ■ • .. • • ■ ■ • ■ • •• ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■•• ••• ■ ■ •••• •••••••• ■••"•• ■■■■ a ■■,. ■ ii elll,: t:O:,JI "an· ■ r 0 1t, ■ 11•APPLICANT VERSUS . HAWA HASSANI MTUMWA ........... ; ...•.. ~ ............ ~ ..... ~ .. · ............. ~ ... R.ESPONDENT . (Application for leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court <>f · Tanzania at Dar es Salaam). · (De-Mello, J.) dated the 29 th day of Novemb·, ·2oi2 in Land Appeal No. 94 of 2009 / RULING OF THE COURT 2ot September & 20 th ·October, 2017 .· · ~ •.. : . ' :--'' KUYE J lA. By way of a notice:of niot1oh made. under Rules 45, 49 and 50 of the -.: .. T 1 nzania C,ourt of Rules, 2009 (the Rules), the applicant HAMISI MSUNGE 1 '' ' ' ' ,· .' '•, ;', :i . : aply for leave ,to appeal· against t.he ·'decision of the High Court in Land . i . . . . . " .. ·. A peal No. 124 of 2011 (De-mello,J.) dated 29/1.1/2012. The applicant has, . ' ' • .. , iQ. a: mannr .which seems to confuse the matter intended to be appealed . - . . . , aainst, rai~ed only one ground .tothe eifect that, Mansoor, J., has rejected . I . . . . . : . . . - . . . . . . . hi$ first application for ·leave to ap'peal to-the Court of Appeal. We are saying i ...... _--- ...... -·---- .... ---- .... ---·--··--· -·-- . ··-·- ........... - I .. . .. .... ' -·-. - ........... --- " ·--------·- - ' .......... - _,, ___ . ·-·. - -- ·- ..... ·-· I 1

in a manner that is confusing because in the title of this application ·It Is. indicated that the application is c;1rising from Land Appeal No. 94. of 2009 that was determined by De-rnello, J., which is- not correct as De-mell9, J., dealt . • · . . with Land Appeal. No.124 of 2011. On the- other hand, the ground raised in I . •

• · the notice of motjon . shows that he. is not satisfied with the decision of • : Mansoor, J., who rejected his application for leave to appeal against the decision of De-mello, J. However, from what we. .could gather from his oral ·and written submission we have taken tha.~ -th~ application emanates from . the decision of De-mello, J., in Land Appeal No. 124 of 2011.. The application · is supported by an affidavit deponed by the applicant himself. He also filed • • • • .. . • : • • ': • .- ; • • •• :_ • 1 .. ·... ~ •• _. ·' '. • • :' .•• •• : .. _ • • • ,· • ' • • ••• written submission in support of the application in terms of Rule 106(1) of .. . . • ·. .= •··.. '. . ·: • .. t:. ·:· .· __ . .'. ·:- ::: -·., l :· .. : •:-.: = •• : .:, ,.,. ··-:·- . : . - -·. ·• .• _: . '. the Rules.-- · -:· , ... ' .. -· ' . ' . . ,!·; · · ·:· · .. .,. The repondent m he_r part, fileq an,qffigavit in reply. affirmed by ,Mr. i ... _ ._$al.eh Ramadhani Njaai together with a written submission in reply in terms . . ' ' . . ' . . of Rule 106(8) of the Rules . . ·- · : .· Before _us, the applicant appeared in. perso,. without a legal counsel. ! ·· ... whil~ the ;respondent lwas represented·: 6y- Mi< Burton Mahenge, learned · . advocate. .. ·-·----·---- ------ -------·--·· - ---·-- - ...... ···-·· - ..... -- ····-· -·- 2

. . . to understand the backQround of. this application, it is imperative to ,, : give a brief account of the underlying. facts:. From ·the Court Record it would appear that the applicant·had,) n the bistrict · Land ·and · Housing Tribunal of Ila la District (DLHT) lost a suit .• · (f:.pplication No. 33 of 2000) wich was filed by the resporiderit. -In that suit. ~ ~ l the repondent had claimed ownership of Plot No. 19 Block "B" Kinyerezi on :· th~ ground that she·was fawfully allocated by the Ministry of Land and issued ,· ·- ... • ,• ;:;; ~- '. - . -: a letter of offer with Reference No. LD/185576/lCC dated 6 th February, 1998.

• i,: The applicant's appeal No. 124 ()f 2011before the High Court (De-mello) :: ..... •· .i -·:_>- · · _:_w_as unsuccessfuL He:ap.pliedo:tor-'-a ·revi~W. but was on 12/7/2013 dismissed . ; . . by Mansoor, J., for be_Ing·time. bart'.ed. l-l'is se·cond application· ·for .review . · .. against the .rulin,g dateq 12/7/2013 was also dismissed on 28/2/20\4 by the . same. judge. . i. ·,. I '
• .. :. ·,.•'. As h·e was · still• dis.satisfied Vvith the'· said decision·s. he lodged an · .. •• application for· 1eave ·to. appeal frj 'the· Court ·of Appeal but the sam.e was --· ... . . ·- -· -- ··-· . --·- --.-·--· ---.-· - -- . . -- ·--- ---- - --·- ...... - .. . .. ; :: : ·'." ,:. .rejected by- Mansoor, J.i dh 27/5/2014. Hen·ce, he' has filed this appllcatiori ! ' · as a second bite. At the hearing of the application the applicant being a lay person, did :,,. .· •;,. ,.-qot have much to say except that he sought to adopt what was contained in ----··----·---------------·-·--·-- -----------·--------------------------...,·--·---·------J---------- 3

,- the notice of· motion, affidavit· and written submission in support of the .· application in which he essentially assailed the decision of the High Court in Land Appeal No. 124 of 201L On the other hand,· Mr. Mahenge, in ttie first place sought to adopt the · affidavit in reply andthe written submission inrep.ly to the applicant'~ written .. . . . submission to form part of the,r· submission. · In the course of hearing the Court wanted to know as to whether tt-i'e appHcation .was tenable in view of • I .. · the provisions of section 47(1) ot'the 'Land.· Disputes Courts' Act, Cap 216 j R.E. 2002 (the LDC Act). Mr. Mahenge submitted that,·this being a land matter, section 47(1) of ,.th,e LDC Act doe·s not confer this Court with jurisdiction to enteita in an . . . . . application: fqr leave to appeal on a second bite. For that matter, he· contended, after the applicati'on fo'r ·1eave· ·wa·s rejcted by Mansoor, J ., the I • • • , •. . • : • • • . : . . _applicant ought to bring an appeal 'ihstead of the application for leave to appeal on a second bite.· At c3-ny rcJJ,- M_r. rvl,:tb.IJ_g 9 _rg11e.d ttJg_t. .th~ q_pplicant · ••• - • .!. -· - .... _ .• • - ·-· • - •• • • • • - .. ,. . ha~. exhausted all avenues by. filing· two applications for review after De- . mello's decision which were- ali:dismissed by the High Court. --- •-• + •--• •-- ,;• -----•---•·• +•H•~--------- ------•--•----•,• -••••---- • 0 -• • • 0 - ••-;,-- • +• --•-• • 4

' ., ' ' , .. .', .. ,· .,. .:· . . ·; · · - . In view of the aforegoing the crucial issue for d~termination is whether l ~ thi.s Court has jurisdiction to entertain an ·application for leave to appeal on a second bite. , The applicant has· invoked among other provisions, Rule 45 · of the · R,ul_es to move this Court. The saidRule provldes: . ' " 45 In civil matters -

• '(a) where an pp;al lies ifh t/2t1'1eav·of the High , Court; applicationfdi leave maybe made informally, :· when the -decisiof7 _aginst whicf?. it. is .desired to I • ., • • • .. • •. •·. ' _ appeal is given or by chamber swnmons according ·. to the practice ·;1 thc!High Court,. within .t4 days of .the. decision/:·· · (b) ·· where an Appeal.lies with'. the leave of the Cowt, ·, application for leave shall be rnade in a manner._ ·prescribed in Rufe· 49 and 50 and within fourteen · days·ofthe decisions.against which-Jt-is desired to appeal 90 wbere the, application for leave to appeal . • • • • • • . • ~ • • • • 1 __ . • lias ·been.made to· i:he-f-ilgh court.and refused, within fourteen days·otthat.refusal." The gist of the above quoted provision is that it specificaily ·provides . . .. , .. , .; -· . . : . . . . . . : .· ,; ·. : . . ·- .' :-· ·_ .. _-· ;.· :i:>• • for. the manner, place and the time within which applications for leave to . :. '· • . . . . . . . : · ··:·.:• ;;··;·: · 7 :,9.ppeal-ar-e-t0-0e:maEle~~T-n-at-is-tes-ay,-afl--afJ13l-ie-a-tiefi-e-A-be·-made·-inf'OrmaHy-·' --~- _: __ ~ 5

•in.the High Court or by chamber summons ·within 14 days of the dee tslon. Oni refusal by' the High Court, .a fresh application can be made to this Court •·. wihin .fourteen days of that refusal. With regard to Rules 19 and 50 of the . , Rules which are also· invoked to move the Court, they in fact provide for the· . requirement of attaching the supporting documents to the application such· . . s. :affidavit or affidavits in suppprt of the application, copy of the decision or : order of the High Court; and lodgment of amended documents upon leave of the Court, respectively. As alluded earlier on; this application finds its root from the decision in Land Appeal No. 124 of 2011. After being· aggrieved by that decision- the . . l . . . . .. .. . .. . . .· , .. . . . . . . applicant lo.dged in te .High Court an appl_ic.ati_on seeking leav_e to appeal .to. ~ i . - . . . . ' . .. . . . -t. is Cqurt .. ' The application was made under among other provisions ?ection . . . ; . . . - . . . ' . ~ 4 (1) of the LDC Act which.states: ~I ·1 .. j "47(1) Any person/· who is agglievedby, the decision o( the High Court in the exer,cfe.;o( its qriginal ., . ··--·-·· - . ·- ., -- -- .. -- ··--- - -· ···--·. -· revisiona/ or appellate jurisdiction may with leave i from the High Cortappeal to the' Cdurt f Appeal in ; . . . . . i accordance. with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. " ! ! . . I. To our ·understanding, from the above cited provision two things l . ·. · . ______ . -. : _____ rrge. ____ One, aU appeals to_ this_ Court_ emanating. from_te tljg_b~Q.~rt.. _ -··-- __ I . 6

;r, o·

~decisions under the LDC Act in the exercise of ·its original; revisional or

• ._ . >. ··:appellate' jurisdiction- are by leave of the High Court. · Two, the· above provision-gives the High ·Court exclusive juri$diction to entertain applications . for.·leave to appeal against the decisions of the High Court on land matters· . ,be it from ·its original, appll_ate or revi$i9nal jurisdiction. The provision, as ;it·is; does not provide for. lodgment of another application for leave to appeal I .. · ·: . ::- nder the Act,or other written law to this Court on a second bite. We think, . : . . · . i the legislature had .intended to give such jurisdiction to the Court, it would I • • : • • H ve so stated. ·•; ' •'.; ·' ' r. , The poition i~ differrit_ in th Appellate Jurisiictia.n Act, cap 141 R.E .. · ,' • . . , . , , . ' .· ' .: : : ,- I•. 1 • •• ~- Ir ' • ~ J , : ,; ,j .; .. , , • , • , ·-, :· :·_ :_-r , , . : :., 2., · 02 (f:,JA) which confers appellate jurisdiction to this Court. It provides for· ' -3 _,,.,, ·•, ! ,, ... ,. , i d,ifferent' scheme for appeals· not governed by other written laws· like ·, te matter at hand. Section 5 of AJA gives a right to a person aggrieved ••. .. : . · 1ith a decisio~.of the Hig'7 Co~rt in exercise f varius jurisdictions to appeal tq this Court .. The. section provides: • • . • l • . · . -,, ,. . ' . ''5(1) In civil proceedings, except where any other · written /aw. for the time being in force · : provides otherwise; an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal. 7

(.- That said and done, we think that after _the High Court's refusal to . grant the applicant leave to appeal· against the decision in Land Appeal No. 124 of 2011, the applicant -could have proceeded by bringing before· this Court an appeal against the order of the High Court refusing to grant - su'ch leave. He cannot bring the matter· by way of an application for leave on a second bite. In the sense, we agree with Mr. Mahenges' proposition. On _the basis of the foregoing, we find under the circumstances of this _ matter that the application is misconceived and we strike it out with costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 18 th day of October, 2017. , .I. ' j _a, ; j I . ; l B.M .. LUANDA- ,·· . JUSTIC~ OF APPEAi: - A.G~ MWARIJA JUSTICE OF APPEAL R._K. MKUYE JUSTICE.OF APPEAL . ,,· :, j •. ; • I AH SUMI I . . . - -, DEPUTY REGISTRAR : · COUR,- OF APPEAL- '. .,, . ' ···-·-···· --·------···------ ·. --·-··· --·-----·-·-·-·····,-· . -·-··--·-- ------ ·- -- ---- -· ··-·-· ···-·-·-------- -· .... --- - ' 9