Ligalwike vs Matar & Another (Civil Appeal 13 of 1997) [2000] TZHC 9 (2 August 2000)

(From Orilnal Application No.430 of 1992 of Heo;iDmtl Hcusinr Tribunal and frem Hcusinc: Ap;;eals Tri buned No. 31 of 1996)

1. ):iL:..:;rr;.i"_ .>iIDI M/,I'j R I fi.E,SFONDENTS
2. HhLFf~ N/;S)OHO I This appeal hs loen fiJed by the appellants after being dissatisfied with the decision of the Housing Appeals Tribunal which had rcv2rsed the findings of the Re'.Sj.cnal Housing Tribunal. The' appll,qnts "-lere being represented by I"ir. LUkwaro, learned cuunsel while l~r. Maftaha, le8rned ccunsel appeared for 'che respcndent. Hr •. Lukwaro filed fe,ur grounds & {he5e are th3t:- the 1"'l:::;e'1lsTribunal erred en law and fact te, n:clucc: th,:' stam12rd rent set by the Regional d,::msing Tribunc:tl 3nd makin its own assessment an~ thereby inoring the v81uation report the J-1ITcals l.'ribun3l erred on tIle law in settin tne effective date as being the date of the jUdgement cf the Regional tribunal instc':"'lcl of the d8te of the valuation report the Appeals Tribunl erred on the law indirecting that TShs.4l3,OOO/= shculd be reunded to the respondent VJ}lere part cf it has alreedy been deducted by way of rent. the Appeal Tribunal erred to grnnt costs to the resrGnents.

On 18/6/1996, the Vice Chairrr:3n of the Region3l Housing Tribunal h"J.c ordered that the present appellel1ts pay rent amounting to TSh$.4D,JOO/= p.m, effective d3te 1/4/92 for the rT',)perty situate at N",.794, l'J13hunclaStreet, Tandika, Dare es Salaam. This assessmen~ was based on the valu,::ltion rel,)rt cl'""Jtecl Ivlarch, 1'})2 - which rETort stated tht tll'2 rerlr}cunent cc'st (;f the rrop::rly was TShs. 3,420, OOG / = VIi th annu21 rent out 14% ie, TShs.480.C)C'O/=. The· e;llants v,()ro to deduct costs incurred in renovation on 2real, the Arpeals TriLunal set aside tlw st:3nciard rent of TShs40,OC)O/= :mdf'ixed the sarr:(; at TShs. 25, coo i == pD. Furthe l' the trpeals Tribun(1:rder2c1 the respcD(lent to refund the apel13nts TShs.h1J,(})()/= incurrc·d as construction costs; and that the 0ffective elate vms orderE)(l to be 20/1/95, the date the tribunal delivered its judgement. Mr. Lukw2ro 1")1' the a; tC'] lant su:)mitted that the j~_'I:eals Tribunal erred to dcp3rt from the fincUng;s of the ?H Tri1)Una1 withe.ut 8ssi c ;ning any reasons. He added that as the valuaticn Kefrt was accepted by the RHT, nnd the rc:sj.>,cncLmtsdid not chalL?n s 0 it, then was errenous on the part :_)f the Apreals Tril""l...m8l not to go 31 ong with the" finclins)f the l-\H TriL,unal on the issue of standard rent, On the effective clG.te of Hr. Lukwaro submitted that if not rid rent since J3Duary, 1992 and valueation dene in March, 1992 then it was only fair that the respondents pay the st8ndard rent from the date of the valuation report. He stat:::cl tlYl t the jUdgment of the HIi Tribunal was delivered on 24/12/96 - a difference of fcur years, then the 81.rellClnt. is entitled to the fair rent that was assessc'-c} frorr: hE:rc h, 1992. On the refund uf TShs.•41S,OOC/= Hr. Luk'tnro sutmitted th3t'?s till:; ?J -(=:11cH~t h2d stetecl th3t all the money had

js to costs, Nr * Lukwaro suLn:ittEOC 1 thJ.t the resrondents were not enti tleci tc costs. On the strength of the su'::)missions made; Hr. Lukvnro prayed for their .srpeal to be allowed with costs. Mr. Maftaha for the resrondents submitted that the decision of the: i. .r'I,'1ls Tribuncl ,,'{as lJrc1er in th," tEach C2 se h3cl i~,)lji": clec i,:l:.;c! Oil its own merits. he added that the Trit:ul1<:11 W'3S net tJl)und to follow the valuation Report. ccording to Mr. Maftehs, the 1\Pp08l Tribunalga-vc: rC'lSCD:3w;,y i ~ fix(d the rc::nt at TShs.25,OOO pm intoed of TShs4Q,OOOpm. 1\S to th, C1'.'lanl uf costs. 1/]1'. I1\aftah3 submitted that costs 3re normally 2Vl,'lrdf2dtc th2 winner unless the court decide other\t!Ls0. He prrlyecl for the aYTcal to be dismisscd. I have onsidoric:d thE.! oral ar~!uc.ents put forward by counsel fc,y' eith;';r side. Did the I1PP'.:::a15 Tribul181 o;ive ciny re~-1scns ','k,y it clecic1ed t n dcp8rt from the finclings of the trL·1.1 Tribunal? I thinl': yes. The which figure was C',btained from' the v81uqtinn rei urt. The fincUnp;s of the v'1]uattcn re1'c;rt nre not binclinrr un the Tribun'31. The rete of TShs.40,COO was the valuers maximum 8.ncl n'-?gotia .. 'le rc"nt. Indc\3d if this ':J'}S the maximum :;.nclll.'c!goti8hIe', W3S the '111' bcund to stand by it? I think l1'::Jt. If it 'd'1.S the: rr:3ximum, the l\i:peals TrituD.8.1 acted correctly tc: set it 3.side and fix stand3.rd rent at TShs .25 ,00C' pm. As to the cffec:ti ve cbtc, the hppeal Tribunal was of the oinion that tl~ new rent start to operate from the d3te of t:lO ,uclgr;<:nt EHlcl not on the elate of tho v81uation rercrt. On this I entirely agree with the APl'sElls Tribun3l dec isicn, dS tht;: new s tand8rd rent cannot operate retro)}ectively. The now stgnc1ard r,:;nt it to be effective from 20/12/95, the dete the trial Housinrr, Tribun21 delivered its jUdg;nent.

On the refund of TShs.4l8,OOO being claimed by the respondents. The !jHT had ordered the aprellant to refund he respcndents unless this amount C3n be defrayed from monthly rents, if the responC2nts are still occupying the premises. . -Whether such an amount had been used for construction C9sts, surely who benefitted. Is it the landlady of the tenants? I think it is the appellant. If that be so the decision of the HT regarding this refund is in my view fair and. I would uphold it. 1\S to cost orc1.credby the preals tribunal, the respondents are entitled to cests as they won on appeal. I see nothing wrong with that crder. In the up.shot I would disrriss the ar,pellants appeal with costs too. Delivered before Mr. Lukwarc fur Appellant and in absence of Respondent , /:.'! ) /. -illf-) ·;"J0J.t- !. G. BUBESHI JUDGE 2/8/2000