Motel Impala Limited vs Randle Mrema and Others (LAND CASE NO. 000001369 OF 2026) [2026] TZHC 3094 (4 June 2026)

THE JUDICIARY OF TANZANIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA LAND CASE NO. 000001369 OF 2026 MOTEL IMPALA LIMITED .............................. COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF VERSUS RANDLE MREMA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT PELAGIA MREMA .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT MORENA MREMA LIMITED .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .............................. RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT RULING NDUMBARO, J This is a suit filed by the plaintiff herein claiming ownership of land Plot No. 23, Block “AA”, Kijenge Area, Arusha City, registered under Certificate of Title No. 13134, L.O. No. 169301, with an estimated value of Tanzanian Shillings Two Billion One Hundred Twenty-Four Million Only (Tshs. 2,124,000,000/=). The Plaintiff’s claims against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants is for unlawful possession of the said land; and against the 4th Defendant is for cancellation of the transfer and consequential registration of land under Certificate of Title No. 13134, L.O. No. 169301, situated at Plot No. 23, Block “AA”, Kijenge Area, Arusha City, from the Plaintiff to the 3rd Defendant. The suit encountered Preliminary objections raised by all 5 defendants against the plaintiff, as practice demand Preliminary objection ought to Page. 1

be disposed of first. The PO was heard ex exparte in the absence of the plaintiff. I find it good to state the reasons for hearing the PO ex exparte as follows: The plaintiff was represented by Advocate Ombeni Kimaro, who has not appeared since the suit was filed. The matter was filed on 20/01/2026, and it was fixed for mention for the 1st time on 25 February 2026, whereby Advocate Mahimbali held brief for Advocate Ombeni. On 31 March 2026, Advocate Anna Ngoti appeared on behalf of Advocate Ombeni; it was when defendants raised PO in their WSD, and the court went into an ordering hearing of PO on 04/05/2026. On the date of hearing of PO, all parties were present and ready for hearing, save for Mr. Ombeni counsel for the plaintiff. Nevertheless, Ms. Anna appeared again for Mr. Ombeni on the said date of hearing and informed the court that Mr. Ombeni is sick and made a prayer to dispose the P.O by way of written submissions. Since all parties were ready to proceed orally the Court adjourned the hearing to the next week taking into consideration that Mr. Ombeni claimed to be sick, further to that order, the court went into making specific order that “Hearing to proceed on 14/05/2026, Plaintiff counsel should provide proof of sickness, and if it appears on the date fixed for the hearing, any emergency arises, counsel having an emergency should send another counsel to defend the matter”. When the matter was for hearing on the scheduled date 14/05/202, Ms. Anna appeared for the 3rd time and once again informed the court that Mr. Ombeni is attending a session at Moshi before Simfukwe J, the letter to that effect was sent to the court filing system. With due respect session before My learned sister Simfukwe J, was good reason for adjournment; however, each case is decided accordingly, basing on the fact and circumstances therein. As when the Court adjourned hearing of PO for the 1st time I believe the last time the matter was adjourned due to Sickness reasons the plaintiff counsel was aware of the existence of the said session as the cause list had already been put into his attention. That being the position, it is my firm view that he was duty bound to inform the court when fixing hearing date so that the court could not fix hearing on the same date the plaintiff ought to attend session in Moshi High Court. Despite the fact that my previous order Page. 2

was very specific that, in case of any emergency, plaintiff counsel had to instruct another counsel so that we may proceed with the hearing. That was not complied with. Ms. Anns appeared and made the same prayer as previously made to proceed by way of written submission. As the court previously rejected the prayer for the stated reasons, it ordered that the hearing to proceed. Unfortunately, Ms Anna chose to step out of the Court immediately after the court had made that order, in that regard, hearing proceeded in the absence of the plaintiff’s counsel. Hence this ex parte ruling. The Defendants jointly and severally raised four primary points of law, which I shall address seriatim; as for the 1st and 2nd PO is to the effect that the Plaintiff is a proper party to sue and the suit was not signed by a competent person. Mr Sood, the counsel for the 1st and the 2nd defendants, contends that Michelle Mrema, who signed the verification in the plaint, lacks the locus standi to sue on behalf of the company as she is neither a director nor a shareholder, contrary to Order 28 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, RE 2023, which requires, a suit by a corporation must be signed by a company secretary, director, or principal officer. Cited the case of Banson Enterprises Limited Vs Mile Artan Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2020; page 12, paragraph 2, lines 4 and 5; to support the argument that if the suit is not signed and verified by a competent person cannot be maintained. The Defendants further submit that the plaintiff ought to annex a Memorandum or Articles of Association or an extract from BRELA to prove directorship. That was not done; hence, he is not a competent person to sue. Mr Benson, the counsel for the 3rd defendants, and Mr Bundala, State Attorney, for the 4th and 5th defendants, argued that the suit is untenable for failure to exhaust statutory remedies under Section 102(1) of the Land Registration Act Cap. 334 R.E. 2023, that the Plaintiff’s grievances against the decisions, order, or acts of the Registrar of Titles, on issuance of title, must appeal to the High Court within three months as per section 102(1) of the Land Registration Act Cap. 334 R.E. 2023. The Defendants maintain that filing a fresh suit instead of a statutory appeal renders the proceedings incompetent. Supported the argument with the case of Baltazar Musolin Kitundu and Nico Land Development Company Limited vs Page. 3

Registrar of Titles and 4 others Misc Land Appeal 12892 of 2025; cited the Court of Appeal case of Mondolosi Council LTD Civil Appeal, whereby, on page 10, the law prescribes a requirement for instituting proceedings against the Registrar; non-compliance: lenders, the proceedings incompetent. Mr Benson's counsel for the 3rd Defendant argued the Plaintiff, Motel Impala Limited, sold the suit property to the 3rd Defendant via a sale agreement attached to the plaint; she cannot deny her own Act; he invited the Court to apply the maxim nemo contra factum suum venire potest (no one can go against their own act). Argued, further, that Section 131 of the Evidence Act Cap. 6 R.E. 2023 is to the effect that, when a person by their act or omission intentionally causes another to believe a thing to be true and to act upon it, they cannot later deny the truth of that thing; argue the plaintiff having sold the land, is estopped from challenging the 3rd Defendant’s title. Mr. Bundala, the counsel for the 4th and 5th defendants, argued that, since the suit involves the Government, a 90-day notice of intention to sue was mandatory under Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap. 5 R.E. 2023. The Plaintiff served the Registrar of Titles and the Solicitor General but failed to serve the Attorney General, contrary to Section 6(4) Cap. 5; the failure vitiates the proceedings. The defendants were of the view that this suit lacked merit and ought to be struck out with costs. Since the matter proceeded ex parte against the plaintiff, it is now time to determine merit of the preliminary objections raised. On the issue that suit was filed by an incompetent person contrary to section 28 Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code, RE 2023, raised by the counsel for the 1st and 2nd defendants; it may be viewed that to prove as to whether Michelle Mrema is the director of the plaintiff and as to whether she is a competent person to institute this matter and the PO raised by 3rd defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is the one who sold the suit land to the 3rd defendants; may require evidence to ascertain, hence defeat the principle of Preliminary objection enunciated in the case of Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 699 that: “A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are Page. 4

correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion . . . “ The position was further explained in the case of Alliance Insurance Corporation Ltd vs Arusha Art Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 297 of 2017) [2018] TZCA 294 (14 December 2018), page 8, as; “There is no dispute that, although they are shown to have been drawn by ENSAFRICA, a juristic person, the documents have been signed. They could not have been signed by a juristic but a natural person. The issue of whether or not the person who signed them is unqualified or not is a matter which requires evidence to ascertain”. On the PO that the Attorney General was not issued with statutory notice, contrary to Section 6(2) of the Government Proceedings Act; it is apparent that Non- compliance with this condition precedent vitiate proceedings. On the objection that since the plaintiff was aggrieved with the decision of the Registrar of Title, ought to file an appeal, not a suit. It is the position of law in section 102 of the Cap. 334 that any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar has the remedy is appeal to the High Court as; “A person aggrieved by a decision, order or act of the Registrar may appeal to the High Court within three months from the date of such decision, order or act” Having the above position, I agree with Mr Benson, counsel for the 3rd defendant and Mr. Bundala, State Attorney for the 4th and 5th defendants, that the plaintiff cannot circumvent the position by filing a fresh suit, in lieu of an appeal. The plaintiff ought to exhaust available remedies. The position is well explained in the case of Baltazar Musolin Kitundu and Nico Land Development Company Limited vs Registrar of Titles and 4 others Misc Land Appeal 12892 of 2025. I therefore find merit in this PO. Due to that backdrop, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Government Proceedings Act, by issuing notice to the Attorney General and the failure to exhaust the remedy available, for filing appeal before Hight Court after being aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar of Titles, make this court to have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that said, I therefore proceed to make the following orders.

1. The Preliminary Objection on the jurisdiction of this court to entertain a fresh suit instead of an appeal is hereby upheld. 2. The Plaintiff’s suit is struck out for being incompetent and Page. 5

bad in law. 3. Costs to the plaintiff. It is so ordered Dated at ARUSHA this 4th of June 2026 . D. D NDUMBARO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Page. 6