Marwa Maginga and Others vs Ghati Jackson Mugita (Land Appeal No. 6925of 2026) [2026] TZHC 2845 (1 June 2026)

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (JUDICIARY) THE HIGH COURT - LAND DIVISION ( MUSOMA SUB REGISTRY AT MUSOMA ) LAND APPEAL No. 6925 OF 2026

1. MARWA MAGINGA
2. MWITA NYAHUCHO
3. MOHERE MWITA CHACHA V ................ /
4. SERESA MAGOIGA MAGIGE C
5. PETRO MWIKWABE CHAMBILI
6. WEGESA MGOSI WEREMA Versus GHATI JACKSON MUGITA RESPONDENT RULING 01.06.2026 & 01.06.2026 Mtulya, J.: In the present appeal, the appellants were aggrieved by the interlocutory decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Mara at Tarime (the tribunal) in Application No. 80 of 2024 (the application), issued on 11 th February 2026, by refusing to admit additional documents which were brought in the application after conclusion of the prosecution case. The appellants then approached this court in Land Appeal No. 6925 of 2026 (the appeal) complaining on two (2) issues, namely: first, the tribunal had erred in law for entertaining an objection which was brought in the i

application prematurely; and second, the tribunal erred in law for expunging the additional documents from the record before conclusion of the application. The appeal was scheduled for necessary orders today, 1 st June 2026, and both parties had invited legal services of Messrs. Anold Katunzi and Samson Samo, learned counsel for the appellant and respondent respectively, and were ready for the appeal hearing. However, before the hearing proceedings could take its course, this court, in a suo moto move, had noted that the decision of the tribunal in the application did not resolve the suit to the finality. This court then had invited the parties learned counsels to explain on the raised subject, while taking note on the texts enacted in section 84 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E. 2023] (the Civil Code), proviso to Regulation 22 of the Land Disputes Courts (The District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, GN. No. 174 of 2003 (the Regulations) and practice of the Court of Appeal in the precedent of Generator Logic v. Eli Mukuta, Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2019. In cherishing the right to be heard, Mr. Samo submitted, in brief, that the decision of the tribunal originated from a preliminary objection raised by the respondent in the tribunal in order to resist registration of appellants' exhibits after the respondent had 2

completed and closed his case. According to Mr. Samo, the decision did not complete the case to its finality hence he prayed the appeal to be struck-out for good record and application file be reverted back to the tribunal to continue with the defence hearing. On the other hand, Mr. Katunzi thought that the decision of the tribunal in the application has refused necessary documents of the appellants which go to the root of the matter hence denied the appellants the right to be heard. In his opinion, the objection was supposed to be brought at tendering of exhibits stage and not at the introduction or registration of the documents on the record. However, finally, Mr. Katunzi had decided to let this court to issue appropriate orders as it think necessary and fit under the circumstance. On my part, I think, this court cannot be detained on obvious issues which breach section 84 (2) of the Civil Code, proviso to Regulation 22 of the Regulations and precedent in Generator Logic v. Eli Mukuta (supra). The indicated section and Regulation provide, in brief, that: no appeal shall He against any preliminary decision of a court or any other tribunals, unless such decision has effect of finally determining the suit On the other hand, the precedent in Generator Logic v. Eli Mukuta (supra), shows that a decision is final only when it finally disposes of the rights of the parties. That means, the interlocutory decision must be such that it could not bring back the 3

matter to the same court or tribunal. This thinking has been supported by Court of Appeal precedents in a large number of decisions (see: Prime Catch (Exports) Limited & Five Others v. Diamond Trust Bank Tanzania Limited, Civil Application No. 296/16 of 2017 and Dennis Francis Ngowi v. Asteria Morris Ambrose, Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2014). In the present appeal, it vivid that the decision of the tribunal in the application does not end the matter to its finality. Similarly, any decision in this appeal on merit of the contests will take back the application to the tribunal for the defence hearing. Taking the course, suggested by Mr. Katunzi, it is certain that it will breach the procedure and requirement in section 84 (2) of the Civil Code, proviso to Regulation 22 of the Regulation and precedent in Generator Logic v. Eli Mukuta (supra) The rationale of barring appeals against interlocutory decisions which do not resolve contests in finality is to promote an expeditious administration of justice. That is to ensure timely justice, and at the same time making access to justice affordable that is less costly. More importantly, it affords both parties in the case, equal opportunity to be heard at the full trial without interpolations. In the upshot, and noting there is a law and precedents on the subject, there is no need for further utterances. I am moved by the 4

provision of section 47 (l)(b) and (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap. 216 R.E. 2023] and hereby strike out the appeal for want of application of section 84 (2) of the Civil Code, proviso to Regulation 22 of the Regulations and precedent in Generator Logic v. Eli Mukuta (supra). Regarding the way forward, I remit back the application file to the tribunal for it to continue from where it has ended its proceedings. I am aware the parties are ordered to go back to the tribunal to continue with the contest hence there is no reason of awarding costs in this appeal. Ordered accordingly. This Ruling was delivered in Chambers under the Seal of this court in the presence of the third appellant, Mr. Mohere Mwita Chacha and the respondent, Mr. Ghati Jackson Mugita, and in the presence of learned counsels of the parties, Messrs. Anold Katunzi and Samson Samo, for the appellants and respondent respectively. 01.06.2026 5