Mathayo Oromboi and 4 Others vs Hassan Ahmed Ibrahim and 7 Others (Land Case No. 4976 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8856 (19 December 2025)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB - REGISTRY OF MANYARA AT BABATI LAND CASE NO. 4976 OF 2025 MATHAYO OROMBOI ................................................................1 ST PLAINTIFF SABINA MATHAYO OROMBOI………………………………………….2 ND PLAINTIFF OROMBOI KINYASI……………………………………………………….3 RD PLAINTIFF NAITAPUAKI OROMBOI KINYASI……………………………………..4 TH PLAINTIFF SIRONET LANDEI @ LANDEY……………………………………………5 TH PLAINTIFF VERSUS HASSAN AHMED IBRAHIM ......................................................1 ST DEFENDANT NOLERAH FARM LIMITED ........................................................2 ND DEFENDANT NDAHAT FARM TANZANIA LIMITED………………………………..3 RD DEFENDANT NATIONAL MICROFINANCE BANK LIMITED PLC………………...4 TH DEFENDANT KILICRAALS ADVENTURE AND SAFARI AUCTIONEERS…………5 TH DEFENDANT BUCKETS TANZANIA LIMITED…………………………………………6 TH DEFENDANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES MANYARA……………………7 TH DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .........................................................8 TH DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 23 rd September & 19 th December, 2025 MWIHAMBI, J.

2 The plaintiffs claim to be lawful owners of a land (the suit land) measuring 2000 acres located at Namalulu and Naberera Villages within Simanjiro District in Manyara Region. The first and third plaintiffs own 500 acres each while the fifth plaintiff owns 1000 acres. The first and third plaintiffs trace title to the suit land from allocation by Lengijape Village Council (now Namalulu Village Council) in 1990. The allocation was approved by the village assembly in 2000. The fifth plaintiff claims to have bee n allocated the dispute land by Naberera Village Council in 2002. The second and fourth defendants are wives of the first and third plaintiffs respectively. In February 2000, December 2004 and October 2021 the plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the second and third defendants through the first defendant. The second and third defendants are owned by the first defendant. The agreement was for the fir st defendant to develop the land for agriculture. In 2019 the first defendant obtained a Certificate of Title No. 14940 on the plaintiffs’ 2000 acres. He got it after claiming to have purchased the same from them. The Title was in the name of the second defendant and has been used by the third defendant t o acquire a loan of TZS 870,000,000/ - from the fourth defendant. The third defendant defaulted in payment of the

3 loan; hence, the suit land was sold by the fourth defendant to the sixth defendant using the fifth defendant. They thus pray for judgment and decree against the Defendants, among other things, a declaratory order that Certificate of Title CT No. 14940 was fraudulently obtained. The Defendants filed written statements of defence (WSD). The first, second and third defendants filed a joint WSD. The seventh and eighth defendants filed a joint WSD too while the fourth and fifth defendants filed separate WSD for each. In the filed WSDs the defendants denied all allegations by the plaintiffs. The matter proceeded ex parte against the 6 th defendant for failure to appear despite being served accordingly. Under paragraph 3 of the first, second and third defendants joint WSD, they state that the suit land is lawfully owned by the second defendant through transfer from the first defendant and purchase from the first, second and fifth plaintiffs. They also den y the allegation that Certificate of Title No. 14940 was obtained fraudulently. Under paragraph 2 of the fourth defendant WSD, the fourth defendant states that the suit land is the lawful property of company called Nolerah

4 Farm Limited registered under the CT No. 14940 and was mortgaged to secure a loan of TZS 870,000,000/ - that was advanced to Ndahat Farm Tanzania Limited way back in April 2015 which was supposed to be repaid in 64 months. The fifth defendant states, under paragraph 5 of WSD, that the suit property is solely owned by Nolerah Farm Limited and that the said owner have a legal Certificate of Title dully registered with the registrar of title. The seventh and eighth defendants in paragraph 7 of the joint WSD state that the said R egistration was conducted fairly without any intention to deceit or to deceive neither party but on depending on the information tabled on the office of the seventh defendant. The parties are represented by learned advocates. Mr. Michael Lengitambi represent the plaintiffs, Mr. Shadrack Mafuru, represented the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd defendants, Mr. Godfrey Saro represented the 4 th and 5 th defendants and the 7 th and 8 th defendants were represented by Mr. Lameck Butuntu, learned Senior State Attorney. Upon conclusion of pleadings, the following issues were registered for determination by the Court:

5 i. Who is the lawful owner of the suit land? ii. Whether the first defendant was a lessee to the suit land. iii. Whether the Certificate of Title No. 14940 was fraudulently obtained. iv. Whether it was proper for the third defendant to mortgage the suit land to the fourth defendant. v. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to. In order to prove their case, the Plaintiffs summoned eight (8) witnesses. They are Mathayo Sarakai Oromboi (PW1), Elia Seiyai Lalama (PW2), Emmanuel Njokoro Marite (PW3), Oromboi Kinyasi (PW4), Naitupwaki Oromboi (PW5), Sironet Landey (PW6), Meshack Kanunga Tureto (PW7) and Sabina Mathayo Oromboi (PW8). The plaintiffs tendered 10 exhibits. In testifying before this Court, PW4, PW5 and PW6 were assisted by Mr. Felix Philemon Kivuyo who translated Kiswahili to Maasai language and vice versa. On the other hand, the Defendants summoned three (3) witnesses and tendered five (5). In addition, throughout the case, the first defendant has been introducing himself as the owner of Nolerah Farm Ltd and Ndahat Farm

6 (T) Ltd and that all the undertakings he had conducted were on behalf of the two. This includes testifying for them in this Court. The law is settled that whoever alleges must prove. Section 117 of the Evidence Act [Cap. 6 R.E. 2023] provides: “(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.” In the case at hand, the plaintiffs allege to be lawful owners of the suit land. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on them. In disposing of this case, I shall start with the first issue. PW1 Mathayo Oromboi proved he owns 500 acres in the suit land by tendering “HATI KUTAMBUA NA KUMILIKISHWA SHAMBA NA ENEO LA KUISHI NDG. MATAYO OROMBOI” ( HATI ) dated 11. 09. 2000. It was admitted as exhibit PE1. Exhibit PE1, among other things, reads: “Leo Tarehe 11 Mwezi wa 09 Mwaka 2000 Ofisi ya Afisa Mtendaji Kijiji cha Lengijape inathibitisha kwamba kikao cha Halmashauri ya Kijiji cha Lengijape pamoja na mkutano mkuu wa Kijiji cha Lengijape vya tarehe 09/02/2000 na tarehe 14/03/2000 ambavyo baadae n a kubarikiwa na kuidhinishwa na Halmashauri ya

7 Wilaya ya Simanjiro kupitia idara ya Ardhi Wilaya ya Simanjiro Tarehe 16/08/2000 umekubali kwa pamoja na kupitisha kisheria kwamba eneo la Ndugu MATAYO OROMBOI ni mali yake halali … Ardhi hii ni eneo lenye ukubwa wa Ekari 500 tu. Ardhi hii iko katika kiton goji cha Olkiloriti …” O n cross examination by Mr. Mafuru, PW1 denied to have lost ownership of the suit land by selling it or in any other way. PW8 Sabina Mathayo Oromboi corroborated the evidence of PW1; her husband. PW4 Oromboi Kinyasi tendered “HATI KUTAMBUA NA KUMILIKISHWA SHAMBA NA ENEO LA KUISHI NDG. OROMBOI KINYASI” ( HATI ) dated 12. 09. 2000 to prove his ownership of 500 acres. It was admitted as exhibit PE6. It partly reads: “Leo Tarehe 12 Mwezi wa 09 Mwaka 2000 Ofisi ya Afisa Mtendaji Kijiji cha Lengijape inathibitisha kwamba kikao cha Halmashauri ya Kijiji cha Lengijape pamoja na mkutano mkuu wa Kijiji cha Lengijape vya tarehe 09/02/2000 na tarehe 14/03/2000 ambavyo baadae n a kubarikiwa na kuidhinishwa na Halmashauri ya Wilaya ya Simanjiro kupitia idara ya Ardhi Wilaya ya Simanjiro Tarehe 16/08/2000 umekubali kwa pamoja na kupitisha kisheria kwamba eneo la Ndugu OROMBOI KINYASI ni mali yake halali … Ardhi hii ni eneo lenye uk ubwa wa Ekari 500 tu. Ardhi hii iko katika kitongoji cha Olkiloriti …”

8 PW4’s evidence was corroborated by PW5, Naitapuaki Oromboi, his wife. Apart from PW1, PW4, PW8, PW5, exhibit PE1, and PE6, there is also evidence of PW2 Elia Seiyai Lalama, who was a Chairman of Olkiloriti Hamlet, Nabarera Village from 1999 to 2024. He testified that PW1 and PW4 each owns 500 acres. That the land was allocated to them in 2000. PW6 Sironet Landey testified that he owns 1000 acres that forms part of the suit land upon allocation by Naberera Village Council in 2002 after his request in 2000. PW3 Emmanuel Njokoro Marite was a Chairman of Kosikii Hamlet in Naberera Village from 1999 to 2019. He corroborated the evidence of PW6. The evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW6 on the ownership is supported by PW7 Meshack Kanunga Tureto. He was a Ward Executive Officer of Naberera from 2005 to early 2009 and Namalulu Village Executive Officer from 2009 to 2013. PW7 confirmed that PW1 and PW4 were allocated 500 acres of the suit land, each in 2000. In defence, DW1 testified that he acquired the dispute land in two phases. Firstly, by purchasing it from several people including Musa, Mandi,

9 PW4 and PW1; 500 acres from each constituting 2,000 acres. AGREEMENT OF SALE BETWEEN MR. MANDI MATAYO, MUSA KISOTA, MATAYO OROMBOI AND OROMBOI KINYASI AND M/S NOLERAH FARM dated 4 th September, 2000 was admitted as exhibit DE2. He processed with the relevant authorities and obtained a letter offer of ownership. The foregoing notwithstanding, a dispute erupted involving Naberera and Namalulu villages. Naberera Village claimed 1,000 of the 2,000 acres he purchased fell in their jurisdiction. They allocated tha t land to PW6. Besides the 1000 acres allocated to him as part of the suit land he was also allocated other 500 acres. Upon negotiation, PW6 agreed to sell to him the 1000 acres in two installments. Firstly, 500 acres between SIRONET LANDEY and HASSAN AHME D on 30 th November, 2002 and secondly 500 acres on 4 th November, 2004. “ MKATABA WA KUUZIANA SHAMBA KATI YA SIRONET LANDEY NA HASSAN AHMED” dated 30 th November, 2002 and “ NYONGEZA KWA MKATABA WA KUUZIANA SHAMBA WA TAREHE 30/11/2002 ” dated 4 th November, 2004 was admitted as exhibit DE4 collectively. Subsequently, in 2004, DW1 was given a land title under Nolerah Farm. Due to the use of GPS as opposed to 2000 acres by use of feet in the purchasing, the size reduced to hector 700 plus.

10 DW2 Melvin Karedito Ngalasoni of the 4 th defendant, adduced that they recognise the 2 nd defendant as an owner of the suit land as the latter had a title which was obtained lawfully. DW3 Jafari Mpelemwa of the 7 th defendant adduced that he knows the case is on a title that his office registered to the 2 nd defendant for farming use. From the very outset it is undisputed fact that the suit land is a village land. The management of village land, including disposal is governed by the provisions of the Village Act [Cap. 114 R.E. 2023]. Section 8 (5) provides that a village council shall not allocate land or grant a customary right of occupancy without a prior approval of the village assembly. According to the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, PW7 and exhibit PE1 and PE6, this Court is satisfied that PW1, PW4 and PW6 (the first, third and fifth plaintiffs respectively) were properly allocated the suit land measuring 2000 acres. However, this is not in dispute with DW1. What he claims is that he purchased the suit land from PW1, PW4 and PW6. According to exhibit DE2, the “agreement of sale” between PW1, PW3 and DW1 was entered on 4 th September, 2000 while according to exhibit PE1

11 HATI to PW1 was issued on 11 th September, 2000 and according to exhibit PE6, HATI to PW4 was issued on 12 th September, 2000. It means that the allocation process was complete on 11 th September, 2000 to PW1 and 12 th September, 2000 to PW4. In cross examination by the plaintiffs’ advocate Mr. Lengitambi, as to how he bought the land before allocation, DW1 responded that “ we have to ask them (plaintiffs) maybe they forged the Minutes”. However, all the plaintiffs deny the claim that they sold the suit land to DW1, let alone the issue of dates. On the other hand, article 3 of exhibit DE2 provides that: “The purchase price having been paid the property and possession have passed to the Purchaser and Vendors shall confirm in the presence of a TEN CELL LEADER of the area and/or of the CLAN ELDER, (hereinafter called the LAIGWANANI) of the ‘BOMA’ or ‘HOMESTE AD’ or the VILLAGE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY to have handed over vacant possession of the property to the Purchaser.” However, the 1 st defendant did not bring forward any such leaders mentioned in the above quoted article to certify whether what is provided for in the article was implemented.

12 On the other hand, apart from the fact that parties to this agreement had no witnesses, no village authority was involved in the purported sale. It was only signed by the “three vendors” and thumb printed by 1 “vendor” and signed by the “purchaser” and the advocate. Therefore, there was no one who witnessed the sale except the parties themselves. On his part, PW7 adduced as follows: “… if a land in village is sold the village must have information or if changed status that is going to title the village must also get information as owner of land. In this case we didn’t get that information. Even if 1 acre is sold the village office mus t get information sembuse 1000 acres? There were no meetings on registration of the land, apart from being VEO I’m also a resident in the Village so I could have got the information.” There is also exhibit DE4 “ MKATABA WA KUUZIANA SHAMBA KATI YA SIRONET LANDEY NA HASSAN AHMED” dated 30 th November, 2002 and “ NYONGEZA KWA MKATABA WA KUUZIANA SHAMBA WA TAREHE 30/11/2002 ” dated 4 th November, 2004, which DW1 submitted as proof of purchasing 1000 acres from PW6 in two instalments of 500 acres each. I will not go to the fact that according to exhibit DE4 1000 acres were sold for TZS 4,500,000/ - . In the first agreement signed on 30 th November,

13 2002 the witness of PW6 was one Simion Engoama while DW1 had no witness. As it was with exhibit DE2, village authorities were not involved in the sale. In the second agreement signed on 4 th November, 2004 the witness of PW6 was one Simon Ngowama while DW1 had no witness as well. While in the agreement signed on 30 th November, 2002 “the seller” (PW6) put a thumb print, in the second one dated 4 th November, 2004 only his name was written. In addition, village authorities were also not involved. Talking about this sale agreement, PW6 vehemently denied the claim that he sold 1000 acres to DW1. PW2 who corroborated the evidence of PW6, adduced that: “ Naberera Village Council has not met to discuss or receive information that Sironet Landey’s farm is sold to Hassan Ahmed.” Exhibit DE2 and DE4 raise serious doubts as to their genuineness. This Court in the case of Priskila Mwainunu v. Magongo Justus (Land Case Appeal 9 of 2020) [2020] TZHC 3299 (Kilekamajenga, J.) emphasised that the approval by the village council is necessary in authenticating sale transactions, sealing the sale contract and setting - up boundaries to the land. The council's approval is vital because any problem concerning the land may later come back to the villag e or its members. Members of the village counc il

14 may be able to know whether the seller legally owns the land or the same is a clan land and they may know the neighbors to the land. The Court of Appeal in the case of Bakari Mhando Swanga v. Mzee Mohamed Shelukindo & Others (Civil Appeal No.389 of 2019) [2020] TZCA 28 (28 February 2020) made the following observation: “Even if we assume that the purported sale agreement was valid, which is not the case, then the same was supposed to be approved by the village council … which in our view is in compliance with section 142 (1) of the Local Government (District Authorities) Act - Cap. 287 R.E. 2002 which provides; ‘Village council is the organ in which is vested all executive power in respect of all the affairs and business of a village.’ Under normal circumstances, it was expected for the appellant after he had executed the purported sale deed … to present the document to the village council … to get its blessings. However, the appellant did not comply with this requirement.” Equally in the case at hand, this was not done. This Court finds the purported sale agreements between PW1 PW4 and DW1 (exhibit DE2) and between PW6 and DW1 (exhibit DE4) are invalid and of no legal value.

15 The duty of the plaintiffs was to prove the legality of their ownership. On the basis of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW6 PW7 and exhibit PE1 and PE6 this Court is satisfied that the suit land was lawfully allocated to the 1 st , 3 rd and 5 th plaintiffs and their ownership has never passed to the 1 st defendant through sale or any other way. Therefore, the answer to the first issue is that, plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the suit land; 2000 acres located at Namalulu and Naberera Villages within Simanjiro District in Manyara Region. I move to the second issue. The plaintiffs maintain that the 1 st defendant was a lessee to the suit land. It was so stated by PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7. Apparently the first defendant does not dispute this. His claim is that he was once a lessee then he purchased the leased farms and the lease agreements automati cally came to an end. According to PW1, after he was allocated the 500 acres land, he talked to the 1 st defendant and agreed with him, in writing, for the 1 st defendant to develop the land as a lessee. That fact was proved by “MKATABA WA KUKODISHA SHAMBA LILILOKO NAMALULU WILAYA SIMANJIRO MKOA WA

16 MANYARA – MWENYE KUMILIKI SHAMBA AU MKODISHAJI (LESSOR) BWANA MATAYO OROMBOI – MKODISHIWA (LESSEE) HASSAN AHMED” which was admitted as exhibit PE2. When the lessee delayed to meet the lease conditions, the lessor complained to the Village Executive Officer (Lengijape VEO) (PW7) who wrote a letter to the 1 st defendant summoning him in the village office to discuss the matter. The summons letter entitled “NDUGU MATHAYO OROMBOI KULALAMIKA OFISINI KWANGU KWA UMECHELEWESHA BILA SABABU KULIPA KODI YA KUKODISHA SH AMBA LAKE HEKARI 500” with reference number LE VEO/KIJ/KA/200 dated 20 th August, 2009 was admitted as exhibit PE3. The 1 st defendant did not appear. Finally, the 1 st defendant complied with the lease conditions handed over to PW1 a tractor worth TZS 14,000,000/ - as well as TZS 1,000,000/ - . “HATI YA MAKABIDHIANO YA TRACTOR KATI YA FAMILIA YA BWANA HASSAN AHMED ALIEKUWA MKURUGENZI WA NOLERAH FARM, AMBAYO KWA SASA NI NDAHAT FARM (T) LTD. NA FAMILIA YA BWANA MATHEW OROMBOI” dated 9 th September, 2009 was admitte d as exhibit PE4. The foregoing evidence proves that the first plaintiff leased the land to the first defendant. On the other hand, the 3 rd plaintiff leased the 1 st defendant 500 acres. T he 3 rd plaintiff and 1 st defendant agreed orally that the payment will be

17 maize and beans; 50 bags of maize and 10 bags of beans in every harvest seasons. That, there will be no payment in terms of money. The terms of the lease were letter reduced TZS 1,000,000/ - , 10 bags of beans and 50 bags of maize. The evidence of PW4 on the lease and its terms was corroborated by PW5; his wife. PW5 further testified that she was involved in all the negotiations because her husband was discussing with her before going to the 1 st defendant. The evidence of PW1 and PW4 was also corroborated by PW7 who testified that he knows the 1 st defendant was a lessee ( mwekezaji) to the farms of PW1 and PW4 measuring a total of 1000 acres. That he knew this when PW1 went to the village office to complain for the 1 st defendant default to pay for the leased land as per their agreement. The 5 th plaintiff ( Sironet Landey) / PW6, testified that after being allocated the farm, he cleaned on one side, then the 1 st defendant asked him to lease to him 500 acres and they agreed. The agreement was for the 1 st defendant to clean the bush. The agreement started in 2004 with Nolerah as a lessee and PW6 as a lessor. PW6 adduced that they agreed that the 1 st defendant will clean the bush for three years without paying then after the three years he will be giving PW6 TZS 1,800,000/ - per annum. T he

18 agreement duration was 13 years. “ Mkataba wa kutumia shamba” between Sironet Landey and Nolerah Farm (T) Ltd was admitted as Exhibit PE7. Another lease ran from 2009 to 2018. This time, the lessee was Ndahat Farm company. “Mkataba wa makabidhiano ya malipo ya kukodisha shamba” between Ndahat Farm (T) Ltd and Sironet Landey was admitted as exhibit PE8. The third lease titled “KUONGEZA MUDA WA KUKODISHA SHAMBA” dated 22 nd August, 2018 was executed in 2028. It was admitted as exhibit PE9. Therefore, through t hese lease agreements, PW6 leased the first defendant 1160 acres. The foregoing agreements were adjusted in 2021 through “MKATABA WA KUKODISHA SHAMBA” dated 18 th October, 2021 between Sironet Landey and Ndahat Farm (T) Ltd which was admitted as exhibit PE10. In view of the foregoing evidence and for the fact that the evidence of the first defendant that he purchased the suit land has been discredited, I hold that the 1 st defendant was a lessee to the suit land. The third issue is Whether the Certificate of Title No. 14940 was fraudulently obtained.

19 DW1 adduced that after buying the land, he brought Minutes of the Village and District Council and submitted them at the land office with necessary payments. After survey process and other payments, he was informed that the title is ready and he went to ta ke it. DW3 for the 7 th defendant, testified that the procedure that led to issuing of Certificate of Title No. 14940 was proper. That, in registration of title, the office of registrar title is availed with a draft title ( rasimu ya hati ) whereby the draft title and other relevant documents are from planning authorities’ level of district, district council or city. In this case it was the District Council of Simanjiro. The draft title is taken to the Commissioner of Land then the Commissi oner of Land submits it to Registrar of Titles for registration. After/in registration they do coding, that is, giving number to the draft title. He further stated that: “… on procedure for registration of village land, there must be held meetings at the village level and relevant Minutes. The Minutes will state purpose of the intended survey and identify interest of those who may be in that land. The Minutes shall also identify relevant person in order to prevent a situa tion of a person applying for survey and registration while there are other people occupying the same land. Also, Minutes are needed administratively because under the 1999

20 Act there is a limit of size of land that the village assembly can allocate; 50 acres. In case the size is more than 50 acres then the authority shifts to the district level. In district level there are also meetings to deliberate the matter. From there th e district will be responsible to communicate with Ministry.” He further adduced that if any flaw is identified while the title process is ongoing, then the registrar has to be informed by the relevant district. If no information is transmitted and the process continues, the title will be lawful because the office ha s not received complaints or information on the flaws. He further adduced that in this case no information was communicated, so his office issued the certificate. However, later PW1 and PW8 registered caveat on the title and he informed the parties though he is not aware on how the things ended. DW3 referred to the evidence of DW1 that while the process of title was ongoing it was realised that, part of the respective land is in another village and he decided to go and buy it. DW3 stated that what was supposed to be done is for DW1 to inform the relevant authorities so that the process c ould be stopped as one title cannot stand in for two villages.

21 He emphasised that if a relevant authority spots the flaw(s) but hides it from the registrar, the registrar can rectify the errors in the register. He insisted that: “… the dispute in this Court is that the plaintiffs claim that the title was obtained fraudulently and they pray for rectification of the register, what I can say is we were not involved in the alleged fraud. What I can also say is that this Court be pleas ed to give a decision that will shade a legal light that will pave way for rectification, of the problem, where needed, to prevent duplication.” In a court of law, submitting a certificate of occupancy on a land has not been a conclusive proof that a person owns the land lawfully. Courts always go further to satisfy itself on whether the certificate of occupancy was obtained properly. This Court in the case of Denis Kuboja Mbuge & James Daniel Kuboja v. Prisca Justine Maingu and Two Others (Land Appeal 60 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 5961 (Kahyoza, J.) elaborated that the certificate of a right of occupancy does not grant title to a land which the applicant does not own. On the other hand, in Christina Jailos Mwamlima & Another (Administrator of The Late Jalison Mwamlima) v. Henry Jalison

22 Mwamlima and 2 Others (Land Case 20 of 2017) [2021] TZHC 5834 this Court (Mongella, J.) stated that, in allocating land/issuing title deeds, the land office does not act on mere words from the applicant on how he/she came to possess the land he seeks to be issued title deed. If a person says he was allocated land, then allocation documents must be in accordance with the law. If a person says he purchased a landed property from someone, there has to be a valid sale agreement to that effect. In the matter at hand, DW1 claims tha t there were written agreements between himself and PW1, PW4 and PW6, and he also had Minutes of the Village. The land office ought to have satisfied itself on the validity of the agreements and be satisfied that ownership of exhibit PE1 and PE6 have passe d down from PW1, PW4 and PW6 to DW1. How? DW1 says that he submitted all documents to the land office and surveyors were sent to the village. DW3 says that the land office received documents from the district which is responsible to transfer the documents. In all this process, due diligence h ad to be conducted, and apparently that was not done. I have in mind the evidence of PW2 and PW7. PW2 adduced that:

23 “I was Chairman of Kosikii Hamlet in Naberera Village from 1999 to 2019. Sironet Landey’s farm is in Kosikii Hamlet. As Chairman of Kosikii Hamlet I have not receive a request to register land; Naberera Village Council have never sat to deliberate it. Naberera Vi llage Council has not met to discuss or receive information that Sironet Landey’s farm is sold to Hassan Ahmed.” On his part PW7 testified that: “If the farms proceeded to the extent of getting titles the title must be fraud because it is not possible for the farm to get a title without the village office knowing …” Therefore, if a draft title ( rasimu ya hati ) presented to the 7 th defendant was attached with exhibit DE2 and exhibit DE4 and the 7 th defendant acted on the documents to proceed and issue the title, then, in my settled view, the 7 th defendant acted wrongly. DW1 says that no plaintiff had ever charged him for fraud as they were all like his relatives. This Court says, according to the adduced evidence, Certificate of Title No. 14940 was fraudulently issued and therefore it is invalid. The fourth issue is Whether it was proper for the third defendant to mortgage the suit land to the fourth defendant Simply put one cannot mortgage something that he/she does not own.

24 DWI testified that he took the loan from the 4 th defendant so as to improve the farming that he was doing. That: “I gave the bank title of Noleral Farm as bond. It is not true that I did fraud because we gave bank the details. The lease farm was one; the one by Sironet. The other farms I had already bought so were under Noleral and I was the director so it is not tru e that I did fraud.” He adduced that, he believed before taking the title as collateral, NMB Bank trusted that everything was ok because DW1 gave them the documents. That NMB Bank could not have given them a loan if it had realized that the title had any incumbrance. He added that if NMB Bank decided to sell the collateral for a loan default then it has not done anything wrong ( haina makosa yeyote ). The evidence of DW1 was supported by DW2; an official from the 4 th defendant. He testified that the 1st defendant is a client of the 4 th defendant whereby he obtained a loan of TZS 870,000,000/ - from NMB Bank Arusha Clock Tower Branch . DW2 continued to testify that the 4 th defendant conducted all due diligence before issuing the loan, including confirming on the ownership of the security property from the land department. He said that the 1 st defendant fulfilled all the requirements to the satisfaction of the

25 Bank and that is why the loan was issued to him. “ OFFER LETTER FOR A TERM LOAN ’” FROM NATIONAL MICROFINANCE BANK PLC TO MANAGING DIRECTOR NDAHAT FARM TANZANIA LIMITED, DATED 27 th April, 2015 was admitted as exhibit DE5. This Court has already ruled out that Certificate of Title No. 14940 was improperly issued to DW1. The said certificate of title to the suit land is a nullity. The 1 st defendant had no title hand to the 4 th defendant. In the circumstances, whatever transaction conducted by or on behalf of the 1 st defendant in connection with the suit land becomes a nullity as well. Looking at the adduced evidence, I can say that evidence of the plaintiffs, on all issues for determination, is more credible than that of the defendants. This Court is therefore satisfied that the plaintiffs have proved their case on the balance of probab ility. The fifth and last issue is to what reliefs are the parties entitled to. The following reliefs are awarded to the parties:

1. Certificate of Title CT No. 14940 is declared fraudulently obtained.

26 2. The land register be rectified by adding the names of plaintiffs as owners of 2000 acres within CT No. 14940. 3. The first, second and third defendants were only invitees/lessees to the suit land. 4. A mortgage to the suit land is declared unlawful with no legal effects. 5. The transfer or sale of the suit land to the 6 th defendant is declared null and void with no legal effects. 6. All actions and transactions made between the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th , 6 th defendants or any other third party are declared null and void with no legal effect and that the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th and the 6 th defendants be held responsible for such transactions. 7. The plaintiffs be given a vacant possession of the suit land by the defendants or whoever was given possession of the suit land by the defendants. 8. The 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th , 5 th and 6 th defendants to pay the plaintiffs costs of this suit.

27 It is so ordered. DATED at BABATI this 19 th Day of December, 2025. N. J. MWIHAMBI JUDGE COURT: Judgment delivered today in virtual presence of the first, second and fifth plaintiffs and Mr. Michael Lengitambi, Advocate for the plaintiffs, Mr. Shadrack Mafuru, Advocate for the first, second and third defendants, Mr. Godfrey Saro, Advocate for the fourth and fifth defendants and physical presence of Mr. Lameck Butuntu, Senior State Attorney and Mr. Nixon Tengez, State Attorney for the seventh and eighth defendants. B/C: Ms. Anna Mathayo (RMA) is present. Right of appeal explained. N. J. MWIHAMBI

28 JUDGE