Georgina Mukabaraka vs Angela Fredinand (Land Revision No 2915 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2970 (4 June 2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (BUKOBA SUB - REGISTRY) AT BUKOBA LAND REVISION NO 2915 OF 2025 (Arising from Misc. Land Application No. 07 of 2025 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Karagwe , originating from Land Case No. 06/2020 of Kamuli Ward Tribunal) BETWEEN GEORGINA MUKABARAKA .................................... APPLICANT VERSUS ANGELA FREDINAND ......................................... RESPONDENT RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTI ON MRUMA, J This ruling arises from a Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent challenging the competence of the Applicant’s Chamber Application for Revision on the ground that it is bad in law as it has been instituted as a substitute for an appeal. The App licant resisted the objection, maintaining that the application properly invokes the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the applicable statutory framework governing land disputes and civil procedure. Having carefully considered the objection, the rival submissions, and the applicable law, the Court is called upon to determine whether the

2 application is incompetent for having been brought as a substitute for an appeal. The Court begins by observing that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is firmly anchored under section 47(1)(b) and (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap. 216 R.E. 2023, read together with section 89(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023. Section 89(1) empowers the High Court to call for and examine the recor d of any case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies thereto, and where it appears that such subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdict ion illegally or with material irregularity, in which case the High Court may make such order as it deems fit. The essence of this provision is to confer upon the High Court a supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals, intended to ensu re legality, propriety, and regularity of proceedings. It is not a jurisdiction designed to rehear matters on their merits as in an appeal, but rather to correct jurisdictional errors and procedural irregularities that may occasion injustice.

3 It is a well - settled principle of law that revision is neither an appeal nor a substitute for an appeal. However, it is equally settled that where the law does not provide for an appeal, or where the impugned decision is of such a nature that it is not appealable, the proper recourse lies in invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. This principle has been judicially affirmed in the case of General Tyre (E.A) Ltd v. Amenyisa Macha & Others, Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2003 (HC - ARB, Unreported) , where the Court held that no appeal lies from an execution order and that any party aggrieved by such an order may seek redress through revision before the High Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The principle emerging from that decision is that execut ion proceedings, being part of the enforcement process, are not ordinarily subject to appeal unless expressly provided by statute, and any irregularity therein is properly addressed through revision. Similarly, in John Bisilingi v. Justinian Elizeus, Misc. Land Case Appeal No. 32 of 2019 (High Court of Tanzania, Bukoba Registry, Unreported) , the Court struck out an appeal filed against an execution order and reaffirmed that the proper remedy in such circumstances is revision rather than

4 appeal. The Court em phasized that invoking appellate jurisdiction where none exists renders the proceedings incompetent. In addition, the Applicant has raised issues touching on alleged irregularities in the composition of the Ward Tribunal and alleged violations of the right to be heard during execution proceedings. The law is clear that compliance with statutory composition requirements of quasi - judicial bodies is not a mere technicality but goes to jurisdiction. Where a tribunal sits and determines a matter without lawful q uorum, the proceedings are fatally defective. This position was stated in Leopord Rwetalila v. Dioniz Bankanshorora, Land Appeal No. 35 of 2014 (High Court of Bukoba, Unreported) , where the Court held that proceedings conducted without the legally required quorum are a nullity and cannot stand in law. Further, the principle of audi alteram partem, which is a cornerstone of natural justice, requires that no person shall be condemned unheard. This principle is constitutionally enshrined under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, which guarantees the right to be heard before any determination affecting one’s rights is made. The Court of Appeal in Mbeya - Rukwa Auto Parts and Transport Ltd

5 v. Jestina George Mwakyoma, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2000 (CAT) [2003] TLR 251 emphasized that no decision affecting the rights of a person should be made without affording such person an opportunity to be heard. Turning to the present matter, the Applicant is challenging an execution ord er dated 28.10.2025 arising from proceedings of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Karagwe, which in turn originated from a Ward Tribunal decision. The gravamen of the complaint relates to alleged procedural irregularities, jurisdictional defects, and violation of the right to be heard. These are precisely the kinds of issues contemplated under section 89(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, which vest this Court with supervisory authority to correct illegality, impropriety, and material irregularity in subordinate proceedings. The Court is therefore satisfied that the Applicant is not seeking to re - litigate the merits of the dispute as would be the case in an appeal, but is instead invoking the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction to examine the legality and regularity of the impugned proceedings. The mere fact that a party challenges an adverse decision does not automatically convert a revision

6 into an appeal. What matters is the legal basis upon which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked. Accordingly, t he Court finds that the Preliminary Objection is founded on a misconception of the nature and scope of revisional jurisdiction. The Applicant has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the relevant provisions of law, and the application cann ot be said to be incompetent merely because it challenges an execution order or seeks supervisory intervention. However, I note that despite the fact that parties were directed to argue the preliminary objection simultaneously with the main application and a scheduling order was accordingly made, the applicant who was ordered to file his reply submission to the Respondent’s submission in support of the preliminary objection together with his submissions in support of the Revision Application on/or before 4 t h May 2026 . The Respondent didn’t file any submissions in reply to the Applicant’s submission. The reply ought to have been filed on/or before 11.5. 2026. It is now settled and there are myriads of authority from this court and the court of Appeal (I need to cite none), to the effect that failure to file

7 written submissions as ordered is tantamount to failure to prosecute or defend one’s case. That notwithstanding I have carefully revisited the proceedings of the tribunal in execution Application No 7 of 2 025 dated 28. 10. 2025, I find no irregularity or illegality on the face of the record thereof. It appears that Applicant is complaining about the trial of the matter and not the execution processes. The law provides for remedies for an aggrieved party in the appropriate forum. If the Applicant feels that he was aggrieved by the decision of the Ward Tribunal he was/is at liberty to channel his grievances to an appropriate forum. In the result, the Court holds that the Preliminary Objection lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The Revision Application though unopposed has no merit and is dismissed with costs to the Respondent . Right of Appeal Explained A. R. Mruma J udge DATED at BUKOBA this 04 th D ay of June 202 6