Richard Peter Tarimo and Others vs Finan Peter Ritte (Land Appeal No. 16296 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8524 (19 December 2025)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MOSHI AT MOSHI LAND APPEAL NO. 16296 OF 2025 (Appeal from the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Moshi at Moshi dated 30 th May, 2025 in Application No 128 of 2018) RICHARD PETER TARIMO.…..………………………………….………1 ST APPELLANT VERONICA PETER TARIMO..………………………………..….………2 ND APPELLANT PETER ANTON TARIMO.…………………………………………………3 RD APPELLANT SHUFAA DAUD TARIMO…….……………………………………………4 TH APPELLANT ODILIA ANTON TARIMO….……………………………………………..5 TH APPELLANT VERSUS FINAN PETER RITTE (Administrator of the Estate of the late Peter Caranti Ritte)……………………………………………………… RESPONDENT RULING 8 th & 19 th December, 2025 A.P. KILIMI, J.: This appeal emanates from the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Moshi at Moshi in Land Application No 128 of 2018, ‘herein the trial tribunal’, therein the appellants instituted a suit against the respondent claiming that they were the lawful owners of the nine (9) acres farm ‘ suit land’ located at Zarau hamlet in Kware village. The pleaded boundaries are as follows; in the Eastern it is boarded with Charles Stepheno and Mzee Elipokea, in the North with the road of Korongoni to Zarau, in the West with the road from Korongoni village to zarau hamlet and in the south it was river Ngararikoi. The plaintiffs claimed that they inherited the suit plot from their late father one Peter Anton Tarimo who died in 1965.

2 The records further reveal that; one Peter Anton Tarimo had four children including the 1 st and 2 nd appellants who claimed they inherited the suit plot from their father, one Anton Tarimo (now deceased) who was also the child of the late Peter Anton Tarimo but he also fathered the 3 rd and 5 th appellants who also claimed to have inherited the suit land from their late father. As to the 4 th Appellant, she also claimed that she inherited the same disputed land from her late father one Daudi Salim Tarimo. They averred that the suit plot was entrusted to the respondent’s father one Peter Caranti Ritte so as he can take care of the farm since the appellants at that time were minors. But on 1 st May 2017 the respondent’s father died and on December 2017 the 1 st and the 3 rd appellants ploughed the suit plot with maize but in April 2018 the respondent destroyed the 3.5 acres. They claimed that the respondent had no right over the appellant’s plot in dispute since his father was only entrusted to take care of the said farm. The respondent vehemently denied the appellants claims and put them into strict proof thereof, he further averred that the suitland was of his late father Peter Caranti Ritte who died in 1 st May of 2017 and that his late father legally acquired the suit land since 1972 and lived undisturbed and made therein developments, where in 2000 his blood relative whom appellants claimed owned the suit land instituted a suit claiming ownership via Shauri la Madai No. 17/2000 Bomangombe Primary Court, Civil Appeal No 22 of 2000 at Hai District Court and PC Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001 at the High Court of Tanzania where his late father was declared the lawful owner of the suit in dispute, he stated that no appeal has ever been preferred against such decisions. He prayed the application be dismissed. Upon a full trial, the trial tribunal dismissed the appellant suit with costs. Aggrieved with the tribunal decision, the appellants are in this court praying the appeal to be allowed with costs and with the following grounds;

3 i. That the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in holding that the appellants failed to prove that they inherited the disputed farm from their parents ii. That the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in holding that the appellants are not lawful owners of the disputed land. iii. That, after finding that the respondent’s evidence on how his late father acquired the disputed farm is contradictory and weak the learned chairman erred in law and in fact in holding that the respondent did not trespass in the disputed land iv. That after finding that the respondent’s evidence did not establish how the late Peter Caranti Ritte acquired the disputed land from its first owners Anton Tarimo and Daudi Tarimo the learned chairman erred in law and in fact in holding that the appellants failed to prove ownership of the disputed land and that the respondent is not trespasser. v. That, the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in holding the appellants are not entitled to general damages of Tshs 5,000,000/= vi. That the learned trial chairman erred in law and in fact in differing with assessor’s opinion without assigning any reason(s) This appeal proceeded by way of written submissions wherein Mr. John Materu advocate represented the appellants while the respondent enjoyed the service of Mr. Charles Mwanganyi also learned advocate. I have considered the record of this appeal and submissions of the counsels above, before I embark into the merit of this case as rightly submitted by Mr. Mwanganyi I wish to be guided by the principle that this being the first appellate court, has a duty to re-evaluate the entire evidence on record by reading it together and subjecting it to a critical scrutiny and if warranted, arrive at its own conclusion of facts subject to the usual

4 deference to the trial court's findings based on credibility of witnesses. (See Jamal A. Tamim v. Felix Francis Mkosamali & The Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2012, Abraham Sykes vs Araf Ally Kleist Sykes (Civil Appeal No. 226 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 20 (TanzLII). (see, Tanzania Sewing Machine Co. Ltd. v. Njake Enterprises Ltd , Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2016 and Philipo Joseph Lukonde v. Faraji Ally Saidi , Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2019 (both unreported). To mention just a few. Starting with the first and second grounds as argued together by Mr. Materu, the counsel argued that the trial tribunal chairman at page 9 of the impugned judgment was satisfied that the appellants’ parents were the original owners of the disputed land and that the appellants had the rights to inherit the disputed land since they used the land in dispute after the death of their parents. The counsel further argued that the issue of absence of evidence of the size of the land inherited was not among the framed issues and was not pleaded in the pleadings. He argued further that suit are to be decided on the framed issues and that trial court cannot raise an issue suo motu without according rights to the parties and that the idea that there were other beneficiaries such as Peter Tarimo, Antoni Tarimo and Daud Tarimo was not the matter at the trial tribunal, thus he was of the view the tribunal erred in dismissing the same based on that assertion. Counter attacking the above arguments, Mr. Mwanganyi submitted that the same was misconceived, frivolous,unfounded and baseless as the learned counsel for the appellants only quoted the paragraph in the impugned judgment and left some other paragraph which left the meaningful verdict. He was of the view that the learned chairman did not raise new issue rather he was evaluating evidence of the parties on how the appellant come into possession of the suit land and reasoned that there was no evidence to prove that the appellants by way of inheritance or customary way of inheritance inherited the suitland, thus he concluded that the issue of

5 size of the suitland to each appellant bequeathed was not a new issue rather evaluation of evidence, and to this the Trial Chairman was correct and rightly held that there were no any evidence to that effects. In a brief rejoinder, Mr. Materu emphasized that issues of the appellants to be only beneficiaries were not raised on the pleadings and evidence adduced, thus the trial tribunal misdirected its findings by requiring the appellants to prove that they were only beneficiaries of the suit land, thus this was a new issue and was raised without according the parties right to be heard thus occasioning miscarriage of justice as cases are to be decided based on a framed issues and not otherwise as per the decisions of Somji vs. Salum (1990-1994) E.A 546 the Court of Appeal, and in Jamal Ahmed vs. CRDB Bank Ltd (2016) TLR 106 and City Coffee Ltd vs. The Registered Trustees of Ilolo Coffee Group (2019)1 TLR 182. Having considered the tribunal records, the appellants and respondent submissions above, the next point for determination is whether the learned trial tribunal chairperson raised an issue suo motu and did not afford parties to be heard. According to page 9 to 10 of the typed judgment the tribunal chairman said in the language of the tribunal and I quote; “Ushahidi uliopo ni kwamba Waleta maombi na ndugu wengine waliendelea kulitumia eneo lenye mgogoro kwa shughuli za kilimo. Baraza hili lina maoni kwamba pamoja na ushahidi kuonesha eneo lenye mgogoro wamiliki wake wa asili ni wazazi wa Waleta maombi ambao walishafariki

6 miaka mingi hivyo Waleta maombi kuwa haki ya kurithi, bado ni muhimu kuwepo na ushahidi kuonesha Waleta maombi ndiyo walikuwa warithi pekee na kila mmoja alirithi kiasi gani kwenye eneo lenye mgogoro . Kukosekana kwa ushahidi huo, Waleta maombi sasa wanadai ardhi yenye mgogoro kwa ujumla kama warithi jambo ambalo linaweza kuwa hatari kwa warithi wengine ambao ni watoto wengine na/au wajukuu wa Peter Tarimo, Anton Tarimo na Daud Tarimo ambao siyo Waleta maombi haya huku kukiwa na ushahidi wa ndugu wengine ambao wanastahili kurithi ; kwa mfano Ndoiye ambaye SM2 akihojiwa alimtaja kuwa ana haki ya kurithi kwa Daud Tarimo.” [Emphasis is mine] After the above statement, the tribunal proceeded to evaluate defence evidence and abruptly at page 11 paragraph three made a finding that the appellants have failed to prove ownership by way of inheritance from their parents. In regard of this finding there is no any other reason stated by the learned chairman on the said findings rather than the above extract, in the premise I am settled the above probed issue by the tribunal geared to the decision delivered in respect to ownership.

7 Now according to the above extract, I am constrained to agree with Mr. Materu because, first , according to the issues raised and evidence at the tribunal, the issue of whether the appellants were only heirs or have sued on behalf of others was not raised by the parties, second , the issue whether the size of the land to be given for each appellant or if they own together (co-ownership) was not raised or evidenced thereat. In the circumstances, I am settled that it was a new issue. Therefore, I decline to agree with Mr. Mwanganyi when he observed that the trial tribunal chairperson did not raise a new issue rather, he was only evaluating evidence. Therefore, since the trial tribunal proceeded to make a finding after regarding those issues as deliberated above, it is my considered view the appellants were condemned unheard in respect to the issue raised above. I wish to fortify my view with the principle that courts should not decide matters affecting rights of the parties without according them an opportunity to be heard because it is a cardinal principle of natural justice that a person should not be condemned without being heard. See Wegesa Joseph M. Nyamaisa vs Chacha Muhogo (Civil Appeal No. 161 of 2016) [2018] TZCA 224 (28 September 2018) , Abbas Sherally and another vs Abdul Sultan Haji Mohamed Fazalboy, Civil Application No. 33 of 2002, Transport Equipment vs Devram Valambhia [1998] TLR 89, Mbeya Rukwa Autoparts and Transport Limited vs Jestina Mwakyoma [2003] T.L.R 253 and Samson Ng'walida vs the Commissioner General Of Tanzania Revenue Authority, Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2008 (unreported). To mention just a few. In Abbas Sherally and another (supra), the Court among other things, observed as follows:

8 "The right of a party to be heard before adverse action or decision is taken against such party ...is so basic that a decision arrived at in violation of it will be nullified, even if the same decision would have been reached had the party been heard, because the violation is considered to be a breach of natural justice." In the light of the above authority and the circumstances above, with profound respect, I find the trial tribunal was flawed on its approach. Before I pen off, let me point out here that, it is trite law that judgment of any court must be grounded on the evidence properly adduced during trial otherwise it is not a decision at all. Moreover, evidence tendered should be subjected to analysis before arriving at any conclusion upon it. It is not enough merely to set out conclusions without setting out the process of reasoning in lieu of evidence tendered. Nonetheless, the trial tribunal being a land matter should exhaust all available opportunities within its power for purpose of attaining justice to the parties if it happens there is a need to do so. In the premises, the impugned judgment and subsequent orders cannot be spared. I thus allow the first and second ground of appeal, I only quash and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial tribunal, proceedings remained undisturbed. Thus, I remit the case file to the Trial tribunal to determine the issue raised above sua motu , after hearing the parties on those issues and any other action the tribunal will see appropriate to do, then the trial should proceed to compose a fresh judgment as directed

9 above. Since the determination of these grounds of appeal suffice to dispose off the appeal, I shall not determine the remaining ground. Given the circumstances of this appeal, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED at MOSHI this 19 th day of December, 2025. X JUDGE Signed by: A. P. KILIMI Court: Ruling delivered today on 19 th day of December, 2025 in the presence of the respondent in person, appellants and their advocate absent Sgd; A. P. KILIMI JUDGE 19/12/2025