Geoffrey Gregory Isote vs Amos Ramadhani Chimya and Others (Land Case No. 32418 of 2024) [2025] TZHC 8608 (19 December 2025)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA DODOMA SUB-REGISTRY AT DODOMA LAND CASE NO. 32418 OF 202 4 GEOFREY GREGORY ISOTE (The Administrator of the Estate of the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote) . ....... .... ..... . …. PLAINTIFF VERSUS AMOS RAMADHANI C HIMYA …… … ………. … .. … …………… … 1 ST DEFENDANT DODOMA CITY COUNCIL ……………………….…….. ……..…… 2 ND DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER FOR LAN DS ……………………… ………..…… 3 RD DEFENDANT R EGISTRAR OF TITLES ………………………...…..… ……. ..…… 4 TH DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………………...…..…..…… 5 TH DEFENDA NT RULING 12 th and 19 th December 2025 KISANYA, J.: In his capacity as the Administrator of the estate of the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote, the Plaintiff brought this suit against the Defendants jointly and severally, praying for the orders and reliefs detailed below:-

1. An order declaring that the suit land and all developments made in Plot Number 15, Block “O”, Mbwanga, held under Certificate of Title Number 9274-DLR and situated within Dodoma Municipal, is the lawful property of the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote.
2. An order declaring that the 1 st Defendant to give vacant possession of the disputed properties.

2 3. An order declaring that the 1 st Defendant is a trespasser on the suit properties. 4. An order declaring that any transfers or transactions effected by the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants purporting to transfer the suit land to the 1 st Defendant or any other person are null, void, and illegal. 5. A permanent injunction restraining the 1 st Defendant, together with his assignees, employees, or any other persons claiming through him, from interfering with the Plaintiff’s enjoyment of rights over the disputed land, together with general damages in the sum of TZS 100,000,000/= (One Hundred Million). 6. An order directing the 1 st Defendant to pay mesne profits in the sum of TZS 15,000,000/= (Tanzania Shillings Fifteen Million) per year from 2017 until the date of judgment. 7. Interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of judgment until full and final payment. 8. Costs of the suit. 9. Any other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant. In essence, the Plaintiff’s case is that the deceased, also known as Gregory Isote and Gregory Manase Isote, passed away on 9 th September, 2022, leaving behind several properties, including a farm described as Plot No.

3 15, Block “O”, Mb wanga, within Dodoma Municipal, held under Certificate of Title No. 9274- DLR (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”). The Plaintiff avers that, while discharging his duties as the administrator of the deceased’s estate, he discovered that the 1 st Defendant had unlawfully encroached upon the disputed land. Upon making follow-ups at the disputed land, he encountered resistance and conflicting claims from various individuals who alleged that they had purchased portions of the land from the 1 st Defendant. Thereafter, he approached the 1 st Defendant, seeking an explanation and demanding that he vacate the property. According to the Plaintiff, the 1 st Defendant nonetheless insisted that he was the lawful owner of the land and asserted that he possessed valid government-issued documents in support of his claimed ownership. Prompted by that response, the Plaintiff conducted an official search at the office of the 4 th Defendant. The search confirmed that the certificate of title to the disputed land remained registered in the name of the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote. As further attempts to resolve the matter amicably failed, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit and sought the reliefs earlier outlined. Upon being served, the 1 st Defendant filed a written statement of defence in which he denied the Plaintiff’s claims and asserted that he is the lawful owner of Plot No. 97, Block “AC”, Mbwanga Area, Dodoma City,

4 registered under Certificate of Title No. DOM047468. He contended that he had been in possession of the said land prior to its formal allocation by the relevant land authorities and that, upon completion of the formalization process, the land was lawfully allocated to him and registered in his name. The 2 nd to 5 th Defendants, on the other hand, filed a joint written statement of defence. While acknowledging the Plaintiff’s claim of ownership of the suit land, they disputed the remaining factual allegations. They further stated that they had no knowledge of any transaction between the 1 st Defendant and the persons alleged by the Plaintiff to be unknown. From the pleadings of the parties, the Court framed three issues for determination, namely: first, whether the property described as Plot No. 15, Block “O”, Mbwanga Area, Dodoma City, held under Certificat e of Title No. 9274, was lawfully owned by the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote; second, whether the said property is the same land as that allocated to the 1 st Defendant and described as Plot No. 97, Block “AC”, Mbwanga Area, Dodoma City, held under Certificate of Title No. DOM047468; and third, the reliefs to which the parties are entitled. During the hearing, the Plaintiff testified as PW1 and produced seven documentary exhibits in support of his case. He also called his sibling, Lusekeo Gregory Isote, who testified as PW2. The defence, on its part, called

5 two witnesses. The 1 st Defendant testified as DW1, while Hassan Ramadhan Muhusin, a Land Surveyor from the office of the 2 nd Defendant, testified on behalf of the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants as DW2. The evidence of DW2 disclosed, inter-alia, that, the disputed land originally formed part of a farm registered in the name of the deceased. It further transpired that in the course of the land formalization exercise undertaken in 2019, the 2 nd Defendant surveyed the disputed land, leading to the subdivision and allocation of some plots to various individuals, while other portions were not allocated. In the course of composing the judgment, and upon a close examination of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Court noted indications that there exist other persons with interests in or occupation of parts of the disputed land. Taking into account that the lease agreement/ Certificate of Title (Exhibit P5) held by the deceased covers approximately 1.241 hectares, whereas the Certificate of Title (Exhibit D1) relied upon by the 1 st Defendant relates to a parcel measuring about 589 square metres, the Court deemed it necessary to conduct a visit to the locus in quo. The visit was also intended to establish whether the parcels claimed by the parties are located in the same area and to confirm the presence of developments and occupiers on the land in dispute.

6 During the visit, it was noted that part of the disputed land contained two residential houses, which the 1 st Defendant acknowledged as his. It was further noted that a substantial portion of the disputed land consisted of an open area which, according to the evidence of DW2, had been surveyed, resulting in the allocation of only six plots, all of which were allocated to the 1 st Defendant. Upon further consideration of the pleadings, particularly the averments contained in the plaint, the Court found it appropriate to invite the parties to address it on whether the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties arose and, if so, the appropriate remedies or legal consequences attendant thereto. By agreement of the parties, the Court allowed the issue of non-joinder to be argued through written submissions, which were lodged in accordance with the schedule issued by the Court. The Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ambroce Nkwera, learned counsel; the 1 st Defendant by Mr. Christopher Malinga, learned advocate; and the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants by Mr. Erasto Baluwa, learned State Attorney. Addressing the issue raised by the Court, Mr. Nkwera submitted that a necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable to the suit or against whom relief is sought, without whom no effective decree can be passed. He cited Kawina Hadji Konde vs Gema Guerino Brown (Land Appeal No.

7 6988 of 2024) [202 4] TZHCLandD 680 (12 September 2024), a t page 4. He argued that the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants were necessary parties because, in relation to the conflicting title deeds, they were able to give evidence, though they w ere not trespassers like the 1 st Defendant. He further referred to of Tang Gas Distributors Limited vs Mohamed Salim Said and 2 Others (Civil Application for Revision No 68 of 2011) [2011] TZCA 583 (25 August 2011), at page 30, arguing that an intervener, or necessary party, may be joined even in th e absence of a distinct cause of action against them. Mr. Nkwera went on to submit that the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote was the first person to be allotted the disputed land in May 1998, while the 1 st Defendant obtained a title deed in 2024. According to him, evidence from the site visit showed that, although the 1 st Defendant claimed ownership of three plots, his title deed covered only one plot, while the remainder of the land was occupied by other unknown persons. He emphasized that, even if the Plaintiff could not identify all other occupants, a declaration by the Court that the late Isote was the lawful owner would render the orders enforceable, and any affected person could challenge the judgment if necessary. Learned counsel also referred to Order I Rules 9 and 10(2) & (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap. 33 R.E. 2023 (the CPC), and Mussa Miraji Mussa vs Morogoro Municipal Council and Others (Land Case No. 25157 of 2024) [2025] TZHC 5257 (31 July 2025) at page 9, contending that the suit could proceed

8 against the 1 st Defendant as a trespasser, and that the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants had only disputed the Plaintiff’s claims without challenging the deceased’s ownership. On the other hand, the learned State Attorney, Mr. Baluwa, submitted that non-joinder of necessary parties is governed by Order I Rules 3 and 9 of the CPC. He stated that the Plaintiff has a duty to join parties directly associated with the cause of action and that a decision cannot be properly made in their absence. He cited the case of Abdulatif Mohamed Hamis vs Mehboob Yusuf Osman and Another (Civil Revision No. 6 of 2017) [2018] TZCA 956 (24 July 2018) in which the Court of Appeal held that a necessary party is one whose presence is indispensable and without whom no effective decree can be passed. Mr. Baluwa went on highlighting that during the site visit over twenty residents were observed who had not been joined as parties, and that proceeding without their presence would result in an un-executable decree and violate their fundamental right to be heard under Article 13 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as amended). He also relied on Mussa Chande Jape v. Moza Mohamed Salim , Civil Appeal No. 141 of 2018 [2019] TZCA 13 , which underscores that joining necessary parties avoids multiplicity of suits. He argued that, given the advanced stage of

9 proceedings, the proper remedy would be to strike out the suit to allow for the joinder of all necessary parties. Counsel for the 1 st Defendant, Mr. Malinga, aligned with the State Attorney’s submissions, asserting that the Plaintiff’s failure to join necessary parties was not justifiable. He also cited Tang Gas Distributors Limited (supra) in support of his argument that necessary parties are those whose proprietary rights are directly affected by the proceedings and whose joinder is required to avoid multiplicity of suits. He further submitted that the Plaintiff had admitted, in both pleadings and witness statements, that other persons had occupied and developed portions of the disputed land, and that PW2 corroborated that the 1 st Defendant and others had invaded the late Isote’s land. Mr. Malinga further submitted that failure to join necessary parties is fatal. To support his submission, he cited the cases of Efatha Ministry vs J.S. Khambhaita Limited & Other (Civil Appeal No. 823 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 784 (31 July 2025), Abdullatif Mohamed Hamis (supra) , and Tang Gas Distributors Limited (supra) . He argued that the Court has an independent duty to ensure necessary parties are joined, and that proceeding otherwise would amount to condemning them unheard, in violation of their right to a fair hearing. He prayed that the Court nullify the proceedings and dismiss the suit with costs.

10 After careful consideration of the opposing submissions, the legal authorities relied upon, and the pleadings, I turn to address the issue raised by this Court. The first step is to review the factual allegations forming the Plaintiff’s claim, as articulated in paragraphs 10 , 11 and 12 of the amended plaint, which read as follows: “10. That, the deceased left behind many properties including houses, plots of land, and motor vehicles. Among the properties left by the deceased is Plots of land located at Dodoma City Council which their description is as follo ws; Land Plot No. 15, Block “O” Mbwanga, Certificate of title number 9274 - DLR located at Dodoma Municipal,... 11. That, the Plaintiff herein while discharging his duties as the Administrator of the deceased estates, it is where he discovered that, the plot of land hereinabove stated at paragraph 10 have been invaded by the 1 st Defendant and he has also sold it to other person who is unknown to the Plaintiff herein and the same had been done without neither the deceased consent nor the Consent of the Plainti ff herein. 12. That, the aforementioned plot of land has been trespassed and the 1 st Defendant and has sold the same to the person who is unknown to the Plaintiff and while the Administrator of the deceased estates was making follow ups he was faced with a lot of chaos from the people who said that the land

11 belonged to them and they have bought the same from the 1 st Defendant . (Emphasize supplied). The next consideration is the evidence presented at trial to support the pleaded facts. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Plaintiff’s witness statement (PW1), which was admitted into evidence, reveal the following: “ 9. That, in the process of collecting the same for the purpose of distributing it to its heirs, it was discovered that, the said plot of land has be en unlaw fully invaded by the 1 st Defendant, and without authority or claim of right he has sold it to other person who is known to him and unknown to me nor to other beneficiaries of the deceased estates. 10. That, I faced challenges from the persons who alleges to have been sold the disputed property by the 1 st Defendant , and they together with the 1 st defendant refused to give vacant possession of the disputed land. The 1 st defendant and other invaders has (sic) made permanent improvements by electing houses to the disputed land for human settlement . (Emphasize supplied). The evidence of PW2 further supported the Plaintiff’s claims, particularly in paragraph 14 of his witness statement, where he testified that: “ 14. The 1 st Defendant took advantage of urbanization “ Urasimishaji ” and surveying plots of land that was conducted when the Government Headquarters shifted from Dar es Salaam to Dodoma. At that particular time the deceased was at Mbeya as we have a home there, so 1 st Defendant and other people had thought our father had passed

12 away so they invaded the disputed land .. .” (Emphasize supplied). From the pleadings and witness statements of PW1 and PW2, it is clear that the Plaintiff claims sole ownership of the disputed land, attributing trespass to the 1 st Defendant and to others who allegedly acquired parts of it from him. Moreover, t he Court’s visit to the locus in quo and evidence of DW2 confirm that the disputed land is not exclusively possessed by the 1 st Defendant, as several plots are held by other persons whose name were not revealed. It follows that any decree declaring the late Gregory Mwakaje Isote as the rightful owner of the disputed land, and nullifying transactions allegedly conducted by the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants in favor of the 1 st Defendant or others, would impact the interests of other persons whom the Plaintiff’s own pleadings and evidence indicate were revealed to have sold the land. Despite the Plaintiff’s assertion that he cannot identify all such individuals, evidence from PW2 and DW2 shows that the disputed land was re-surveyed and allocated to multiple individuals, including the 1 st Defendant. It was therefore incumbent upon the Plaintiff to verify, through the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants, the identities of those owners and to join them as necessary parties so as to ensure that they are bound by the Court’s decree in this matter.

13 Consequently, I find no merit in the Plaintiff’s counsel’s argument that these persons are not necessary parties. It is my considered view that they clearly meet the criteria for necessary parties, as they have a direct interest in the relief sought, and their joinder is necessary in order for the decision to be binding upon them . I am guided by the case of Tang Gas Distributors Limited (supra), where the Court of Appeal observed that: “ From these weighty authorities, a beneficial principle of law has developed. This is that an intervener, otherwise commonly referred to as a NECESSARY PARTY , would be added in a suit under this rule even though there is no distinct cause of action against him, where:- (a) N/A; or (b) his proprietary rights are directly affected by the proceedings and to avoid multiplicity of suits, his joinder is necessary so as to have him bound by the decision of the court in the suit ; ” In the light of the principles discussed, I am of the considered view that while the Plaintiff, as dominus litis, has the discretion to decide the parties to a suit, he was required, having pleaded and testified that the disputed land had been sold to other persons whom he also encountered at the site, to join those plot owners as necessary parties under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC. Their joinder is essential to enable the Court to issue an enforceable decree in accordance with the Plaintiff’s prayers and to avoid multiplicity of suits. In addition, any adjudication declaring the Plaintiff the owner of the disputed

14 land and nullifying purported transfers by the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants, in the absence of the other allocated plot owners, would deprive those persons of their right to be heard and violate the principle of natural justice. The Court of Appeal reinforced this position in Efatha Ministry , (supra) holding that: “… the said people who were not joined in this suit were condemned unheard as at the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge nullified the Survey Master Plan for Plots Nos. 010422 to 466 (exhibit D2), which included their alleged plots and declared the first respondent the lawful owner of the entire suit land without affording them the right to be heard .” Having made the above determination, it is necessary to examine the consequences of non-joinder of necessary parties at this stage and the proper course of action. Order I, Rule 9 of the CPC provides that a suit is not automatically defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder. However, at the preliminary stages, the trial court may exercise its discretion under Order I, Rule 10(2) to amend pleadings and join necessary parties. Notwithstanding this, the Court of Appeal in Tang Gas Distributors Limited (supra) held that failure to join a necessary party is fatal and a material irregularity. This position was reaffirmed in Efatha Ministry (supra) and Abdullatif Mohamed Hamis (supra), where the same Court nullified the proceedings and allowed any party wishing to pursue the matter to file a fresh suit.

15 In the matter at hand, the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties was only identified by the Court after both parties had closed their cases and all evidence had been presented. Considering the advanced stage of proceedings, it would be impractical to direct amendment of the pleadings to include the necessary parties, particularly as the Court cannot retroactively validate proceedings conducted in their absence. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the Plaintiff’s counsel’s submi ssion that the case should proceed on the merits against the current Defendants alone, or that the joinder of the other parties can be directed at this stage. In view of the authorities cited and the circumstances of this case, I hereby strike out the plaint for non-joinder of necessary parties. Any party desirous of pursuing the matter may institute a fresh suit in accordance with the law. Should the Plaintiff choose to do so, the 2 nd to 5 th Defendants are directed to furnish him with the names of all persons allocated or holding ownership of plots on the disputed land, after the survey conducted by the 2 nd Defendant. As the issue disposing of this matter was raised suo motu by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs. DATED at DODOMA this 19 th day of December 2025. S.E. KISANYA JUDGE 19/12/2025