Saidi Bihongola vs Thabit Ntamwanya (Land Appeal No. 26337 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 3023 (8 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT KIGOMA LAND APPEAL NO. 000026337 OF 2025 SAIDI BIHONGOLA .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS THABIT NTAMWANYA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT JUDGMENT NKWABI, J 20/03 & 08/06/2026 The appellant unsuccessfully instituted an application No. 23 of 2025 in the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Kigoma. In the tribunal, the appellant prayed for orders declaring him the lawful owner of the suit land which has the size of one- and three-quarter acres; direction that the respondent demolishes the house he had erected; the respondent to compensates him for the plants destroyed; awarding him one million shillings as damages for losses incurred from the commencement of the application to its conclusion; and for the costs of the application. Page. 1

In brief, the dispute arose when the appellant alleged that the respondent had trespassed onto his land located at Kibaoni, in Uvinza Village, Uvinza District, and began asserting ownership by cutting trees and commencing construction on the property. The appellant initially sought redress through the village government authorities, but his efforts proved unsuccessful, prompting him to file a claim before the tribunal. After hearing the matter, the tribunal was satisfied that the appellant had failed to prove his case. Consequently, it dismissed the application and ordered that the status quo be maintained as it was prior to the institution of the suit. Dissatisfied with the decision of the tribunal, the appellant has now approached this Court with 8 grounds of appeal, but on reasons which would be apparent shortly, I recite only the 2 and 3 grounds of appeal thus: nd rd

1. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law and facts pronouncing and handling copy of judgment and decree which have new case number the real case was number 23 of 2025 while copy of Judgment and Decree contain Case Number 23 of 2023 which is different and not existing.
2. That, the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law and facts by pronouncing erroneous judgment on the face of dates on the decree the date mentioned is 29/09/2025 while on the judgment the date mentioned is 29/08/2025. Page. 2

The appellant has the prayers before this Court, as set out below: a. That the judgment and decree of the district land and housing Tribunal of Kigoma at Kigoma be quashed and set aside. b. That , the hon. Court to declare that the appellant is the rightful owner of the disputed piece of Land acres 11¾. c. That , costs of the case be paid. d. That any other reliefs that this Honourable Court deems fit and just to grant. This appeal was heard by way of written submission, both parties were unrepresented and they duly filed their submission. The appellant was the first to keep the ball rolling whereby he submitted together grounds 2 and 3 with the effect that the tribunal erred by pronouncing and handling a copy of the judgment and decree which have a new case number 23 of 2023 instead of 23 of 2025. He added that the tribunal pronounced an erroneous judgment on the face of dates on the decree, the date mentioned is 29/09/2025 while on the judgment the date mentioned is 29/08/2025. The appellant further asserted that it is a cardinal principle of the law that the decree must always conform with the judgment, and on the contrary the decree is as good as no decree at all. To support his argument, he cited Order XX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2023] and the case of Salum Mbaruk Mohamed & Another v. Registered Trustee of Islamic Culture School (DC Civil Appeal No. 1519 of 2025 [2025] TZHC 1797 (29 April 2025), where the set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court for Page. 3

confusing the trial judgment and decree. On his side, the respondent did not oppose grounds 2 and 3. He agreed there was an error in recording the said year of the case and the date of judgment. He pointed out that the actual case number was 23 of 2025 and the date of judgment was 29 September 2025 as per the copy of the typed proceedings. He added that such errors have never been grounds for an appeal, as the same do not fall under either facts or law, and the same are unmeritorious since the Civil Procedure Code Cap. 33 R.E. 2023 under section 106 provides for room for rectification of such errors. Too, the respondent said the same has not affected his rights any more, as he was aware of the case number and was present on the judgment date. He prayed that the appeal be struck out for being incompetent, as held in the case of Murtaz Mohamed Raza Virani v. Mehboob Hassanali Versi, Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2009 [2011] TZCA 536 (22 February 2011) TanzLII at page 7 where it was stated that: nd “It is evident from rule 89 (1) (h) above that one of the essential documents to be contained in a record of appeal is a copy of the decree or order appealed from. It is now settled that non-incorporation of a copy of decree or incorporation of a defective decree renders the appeal incompetent.” I find the arguments of both parties on the combined Grounds 2 and 3 are legitimate, they are in agreement that there are anomalies in the judgment and decree of the trial tribunal. As correctly submitted by the appellant, it is a Page. 4

cardinal principle of law that a decree must strictly reflect the judgment. Any decree that fails to embody the language, orders, and terms of the judgment is effectively invalid. Under Order XX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, the decree must indicate the date on which the judgment was delivered, and once the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied that it has been properly drawn in accordance with the judgment, he or she shall sign it. There is a numerous decision indicating what is stated above, in Uniafrico Limited and Others vs Exim Bank (T) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2006) [2005] TZCA 164 (7 October 2005) TanzLII when the Court was commenting on Order XX Rule 7 of CPC, it said that: “Under the Rule; it is clear that a decree must unambiguously set out the date on which the judgment was given. So, the decree must bear the same date as the judgment. The date of the decree is the date on which judgment was delivered. See Sarkar’s on Civil Court Practice Procedural Manual, Tenth Edition, at page 205. The date is important for purposes of limitation because the period of limitation for an appeal from a judgment runs from the date on which it was pronounced.” By the same token in Bosco Peter Teti vs Life Mushi & Others (Civil Appeal 147 of 2015) [2016] TZCA 214 (8 April 2016) TanzLII where it was stated that: “Indeed, the differing dates clearly contravene the provisions of Order XX Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure code.” Page. 5

The solution for the oddity is found in Haruna Mpangaos & Others vs Tanzania Portland Cement Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal 10 of 2007) [2008] TZCA 61 (10 March 2008) and Nassoro Abubakar Khamis & Another vs Wakf & Trust Commission Zanzibar & Others (Civil Appeal 245 of 2020) [2021] TZCA 736 (3 December 2021) both TanzLII. Further in Arusha Blooms Limited (Under Receivership) & Another v. TIB Development Bank Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 72 (20th February 2026) TanzLII it was held, at page 9, that: “... in such a situation and the parties have noted the anomaly, they, and in particular the appellant, ought to have rectified the record by seeking correction of the error in terms of section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 33 of our Laws which provides that: “96. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on application of any of the parties.” See also Sebastian Stephen Minja v. Tanzania Harbours Authority, Civil Application No. 107 of 2000 CAT (unreported) where it was underlined that: “… The Court can correct a clerical mistake such as where the word “from” instead of the intended word “for” had been written, or an arithmetical mistake such as the figure “108” instead of the intended figure of “180” appearing in the judgment. It can also correct an error arising from an Page. 6

accidental, that is to say, unintended, slip or omission. For example, if the Court intended to say “we allow the appeal” but by a slip of the pen wrote “We dismiss the appeal.” The word “dismiss” was not intended and is wholly inconsistent with the reasoning in the judgment.” The above authorities touch on the mistake on the number of the case in the judgment and the decree. The record shows that the judgment was delivered on 29/08/2025 and the decree was signed on 29/09/2025, and further that the case number appearing on both the judgment and the decree is 23 of 2023 while the tribunal proceedings bear case number 23 of 2025, it is evident and beyond dispute that these inconsistencies constitute anomalies which render this appeal incompetent. Where an appeal is found to be incompetent, the only available course is to strike it out, in view of MIC Tanzania Limited vs Minister for Labour and Youth Development (Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2004) [2006] TZCA 156 (12 December 2006) TanzLII. I strike the appeal out of the Court register. Since the anomaly was occasioned by the trial tribunal, I make no order as to costs. Dated at KIGOMA this 8th of June 2026 . J. NKWABI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 7