Abdulrahman Hoseni vs Mahija Omary (Civil Review No. 22873 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2902 (2 June 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA TANGA SUB-REGISTRY AT TANGA CIVIL REVIEW NO. 22873 OF 2025 ABDULRAHMAN HO SEN I......................................................APPLICANT VERSUS MAHIJA O M A R Y ............................................................. RESPONDENT (Arising from Land Appeal No. 9190 o f2024 o f the Resident Magistrate's Court o f Tanga at Tanga, Ext. Juris, originating from Land Application No. 04 o f2023 o f the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Korogwe at Korogwe.) RULING 02/06 & 02/06/2026. NDESAMBURO, J.: This is an application for review filed by the Applicant challenging the Judgment and Decree in Land Appeal No. 9190 of 2024, the Resident Magistrate's Court of Tanga at Tanga, exercising extended jurisdiction, arising from Land Application No. 04 of 2023 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Korogwe, DLHT. i

The Respondent herein instituted proceedings before the DLHT, claiming to be the lawful owner of the disputed farm, having purchased it from one Mwigulu in 1977. He sought, among other reliefs, a declaration of ownership, an order evicting the present Applicant from the suit land, and costs of the proceedings. Upon hearing both parties, the DLHT found in favour of the Respondent, declared him the lawful owner of the disputed farm, and ordered the Applicant, together with his assignees, to vacate the land. Aggrieved by that decision, the Applicant lodged Land Appeal No. 9190 of 2024 before the Resident Magistrate's Court of Tanga at Tanga, exercising extended jurisdiction. However, the appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the DLHT’s decision. Aggrieved by the appellate decision, the Applicant filed the present application for review, contending that the impugned Judgment and Decree contained errors apparent on the face of the record, particularly regarding the representative capacities of the parties and the issue of locus standi. 2

Consequently, the Applicant prays for the Judgment and Decree in Land Appeal No, 9190 of 2024. The Respondent opposed the application through a Reply to the Memorandum of Review and denied all the grounds raised by the Applicant. It was contended that the parties in both the appeal and the original land application were the same and that no miscarriage of justice had been occasioned. The Respondent further maintained that the Applicant was properly sued in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the late Hosseni Ally and prayed for dismissal of the application with costs. At the hearing of the application, the Applicant was represented by Ms Hidaya Issa Mangare, learned counsel, while the Respondent appeared in person. By consent of the parties and with leave of the Court, the application was heard by way of written submissions. The Applicant, through his learned counsel, Ms Mangare, filed written submissions in support of the Memorandum of Review, contending that the impugned Judgment and Decree in Land Appeal 3

No. 9190 of 2024 contained manifest errors apparent on the face of the record, which occasioned a miscarriage of justice. It was submitted that the parties reflected in the Judgment and Decree of the appeal materially differed from those who appeared before the DLHT in Land Application No. 04 of 2023, particularly regarding their representative capacities. According to the Applicant, while the proceedings before the DLHT involved Mahija Omary, represented by attorney Asha Omary, against Abdulrahman Hoseni in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the late Hosseni Ally, the impugned Judgment and Decree omitted such capacities. Instead, they reflected the parties in their personal capacities. The learned counsel further submitted that failure by the appellate court to properly indicate the legal capacities of the parties rendered the proceedings and the resultant Judgment defective and incapable of execution. In support of that position, reliance was placed on the case of Regina Kulwa vs MastaaJabu Masila and Others, Misc. Land Appeal No. 26465 of 2025 TZHC 7963 to underscore that failure to sue or describe parties in their 4

representative capacities properly constitutes a fatal procedural irregularity. Counsel also contended that the appellate court erred in upholding the decision of the DLHT despite the alleged absence of locus standi on his part to be sued as administrator of the estate of the late Hosseni Ally. It was argued that the disputed land had devolved to the Applicant by inheritance and no longer formed part of the deceased's estate. Consequently, the Applicant prayed for the Judgment and Decree in Land Appeal No. 9190 of 2024, together with the proceedings and Judgment in Land Application No. 04 of 2023, to be quashed and set aside with costs. In reply, the Respondent opposed the application and raised a preliminary objection on the competence of the application, contending that the application had been filed in a non-existing court due to improper citation of the Court's name. The Respondent submitted that the application was wrongly instituted under the caption "IN THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (TANGA SUB- 5

REGISTRY) AT TANGA" instead of properly citing the High Court of Tanzania. In support of that contention, reliance was placed on the case of Ayubu Mwampipile vs Sarah Mwasilembo (Matrimonial Appeal 8 of 2020) [2020] TZHC 4136 (20 November 2020), where the Court held that failure to cite the Court rendered the proceedings incompetent properly. The Respondent therefore prayed that the application be struck out for want of jurisdiction. Without prejudice to the foregoing objection, the Respondent further opposed the application on merits and submitted that the omission of the representative capacities of the parties in the heading of the Judgment and Decree in Land Appeal No. 9190 of 2024 was merely a typographical error which did not occasion any miscarriage of justice. The Respondent argued that a reading of the body of the Judgment clearly showed that Mahija Omary had sued through her attorney, Asha Omary, and that the Applicant had been sued in his capacity as administrator of the estate of the late Hosseni Ally. According to the Respondent, the Judgment sufficiently clarified the status and capacity of the parties, and 6

therefore the alleged irregularity could not render the proceedings a nullity. The Respondent further submitted that even if the Court were to find that there was an anomaly in the description of the parties, the proper remedy would have been correction or amendment of the Judgment and Decree rather than quashing the entire proceedings and Judgment. In support of that proposition, reliance was placed on the case of Ibrahim Abdallah vs Seleman Hamis (Misc. Civil Application No. 127 of 2017) [2018] TZHC 2443 (9 November 2018) On the issue of locus standi, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant's complaint fell outside the scope of review proceedings as it did not disclose any apparent error on the face of the record. It was argued that the determination of whether the Applicant was properly sued as administrator of the estate would require examination of facts beyond the record and, therefore, could not properly be entertained in an application for review. In support of that proposition, reliance was placed on the case of 7

Ruth Makaranga vs Salum Ayub (Civil Application 363 of 2021) [2022] TZCA 562 (15 September 2022) concerning the principles governing review jurisdiction. Consequently, the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the application with costs. In his rejoinder submissions, Ms Mangare reiterated her submission in chief. On the preliminary objection raised, Ms Mangare submitted that the omission of the words "HIGH COURT" was merely a clerical or typographical error which neither occasioned prejudice nor affected the jurisdiction of the Court. She further argued that under Rule 8(2) of the High Court Registries Rules as amended, the term "Sub-Registry" is now the proper terminology and that the Respondent's contention regarding "District Registry" was misconceived. She therefore prays that the application for review be found meritorious and be granted with costs. Before delving into the merits of the application, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the 8

competence of the application on the ground that it was instituted before a purportedly non-existent court due to an error in the heading. The Applicant opposed the objection, contending that the omission complained of was merely a clerical error which neither prejudiced the parties nor affected the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court is therefore called upon to determine whether the defect in the heading is fatal to the application. Having carefully considered the rival submissions, I find no merit in the Respondent's objection regarding citation of the Court. The omission of the words "HIGH COURT" in the heading of the application did not obscure the identity of the Court before which the matter was instituted. The application clearly indicates that it was filed at the Tanga Sub-Registry and bears a valid High Court reference number. In my considered view, the defect is merely clerical and curable, and it did not occasion any prejudice to the Respondent nor divest this Court of jurisdiction. At this juncture, I align myself with the reasoning in Toke vs P.S.R.C. & Board of Internal Trade, Civil Appeal 134 of 2002) 9

[2008] TZHC 2 (9 April 2008) that a mere slip of the pen should not be elevated into a fatal defect. In my considered opinion, striking out the present application solely on account of the omission of the words "HIGH COURT" would amount to sacrificing substantive justice at the altar of procedural technicalities. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent is hereby overruled. I now turn to the substance of the review application. The Applicant contends that the omission of the representative capacities of the parties in the Judgment and Decree constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. On the other hand, the Respondent maintains that the omission was merely a typing error which did not occasion miscarriage of justice because the body of the Judgment clearly explained the capacities of the parties. The Respondent further argued that if indeed there existed any anomaly in the Judgment and Decree, the proper remedy was 10

correction or amendment of the Judgment and Decree rather than review and quashing of the proceedings. I have carefully examined the impugned judgment and decree, the electronic record, and the submissions advanced by both parties. It is common ground that the heading of the judgment and decree omitted the representative capacities in which the parties litigated. However, a perusal of the electronic case file reveals that the appeal was instituted on 25th April 2025 by way of a petition of appeal in which the parties were clearly described as Abdulrahman Hoseni (as Administrator of the Estate of the Late Hosseni Ally), Appellant, versus Mahija Omary (Attorney for Asha Omary), Respondent. The same description of the parties was consistently maintained throughout the proceedings, including in the parties' written submissions and other documents forming part of the record. These descriptions also correspond with the capacities in which the parties appeared before the DLHT. 11

The issue for determination is whether the omission of the parties' representative capacities in the heading of the judgment and decree amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference by way of review. The law governing review is well settled. Under Order XLII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E 2023, review may only be granted upon discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. It is equally settled that review is not an appeal in disguise. A review is permissible only where there exists discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The error complained of must be self- evident and not one requiring lengthy arguments or elaborate reasoning. In the case of Chandrakant Joshubhai Patel vs Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1998) [2002] TZCA 19 (20 May 2002), the Court adopted the principle that an error apparent on the face 12

of the record must be obvious and patent and not something established through a long-drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, in Manohar Lai Aggarwal vs Tanganyika Land Agency Ltd and Others (Misc. Civil Application No. 32 of 1997) [1998] TZHC 2173 (29 December 1998) the Court emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise. I agree with the Respondent that the omission complained of does not amount to a patent error warranting the quashing of the judgment and proceedings. The parties' capacities are clearly reflected in the electronic case file and throughout the proceedings. The omission was nothing more than an inadvertent oversight by the court in drafting the judgment and the decree, and it neither occasioned any prejudice to the parties nor affected the merits of the decision. In my considered view, the alleged defect is curable by way of correction or amendment of the judgment and decree and does not go to the root of the proceedings to render the judgment a nullity. Accordingly, I find no merit in this ground, and it is hereby dismissed. 13

The Applicant further submitted that the issue of locus standi and occupation of the land by the Applicant in his personal capacity also rendered the proceedings defective. However, I agree with the Respondent that such arguments do not fall within the ambit of review. Determination of those issues would require an evaluation of the evidence and lengthy arguments, which are beyond the limited scope of the review jurisdiction. As observed in Abasi Balinda vs Frederick Kangwamu and Another [1963] 1 EA 557 (HCU), a point which may constitute a good ground of appeal may not necessarily constitute a good ground for review. Likewise, in Gracious Mwanguya vs Treasury Registar (Official Receiver of) Tanzania Tractor Manufacturing Co. Ltd (Civil Review No. 3330 of 2024) [2024] TZHC 7438 (14 August 2024), the Court reiterated that review should not be used as an appeal in disguise and that alleged errors requiring lengthy reasoning fall outside the scope of review. Applying the above principles to the present matter, I find that the complaints raised by the Applicant are not proper grounds 14

for review. Consequently, I find this application devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear its costs. It is so ordered. Court: The Ruling delivered on this 02n d day of June 2026, in the presence of Ms Hidaya Issa Mangare, learned counsel for the Applicant, and the Respondent in person. Right of Appeal Explained. 'ANGA this 02n d day of June, 2026. H. P . NDESAMBURO JUDGE *\ H.P. NDESAMBURO JUDGE 15