Sospeter Ramadhani & 2 Others vs Mchiwa Chidego Miscellaneous land appeal no 32 of 2023.

This case was about issue of execution proceeding from the district land and  housing tribunal after being dissmised by the court and one sought for revision against appeal also it provide law used in district and housing tribunal court had this to say:

Also, the provisions of section 38(1) and (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act,

Cap 216 R.E. 2019 is articulate on appeals from the DLHT. It provides that:

38.-(l) Any party who is aggrieved by a decision or order of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, may within sixty days after the date of the decision or order, appeal to the High Court:

Provided that, the High Court may for good and sufficient cause extend the time for filing an appeal either before or after such period of sixty days has expired.

(2) Every appeal to the High Court shall be by way of petition and shall be filed in the District Land and Housing Tribunal from the decision, or order of which the appeal is

brought. Does the Land Disputes Courts Act provide limitations as to the nature of appeals amenable to appeal and those which are not? 

We think that there are no such restrictions as Section 38(1) of the Act requires any person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Tribunal to appeal against that decision or order at the High Court.

The Land Disputes Courts (District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations, GN No. 174 dated 27th June 2003 is illustrative on appeals from the DLHT to the High Court. Regulation 24 (1) of the Regulations entitles any party who is aggrieved by decision of the Tribunal to have the right to appeal to the High Court.

However, the proviso to this Regulation is to effect that preferring an appeal should not act as a bar to the execution of decree or order of the Tribunal.

It is my considered view that the procedure for appealing to the High Court from DLHT is clear from any ambiguities as covered by the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R.E. 2019 and the Land Disputes Courts (the District Land and Housing Tribunal) Regulations GN No 174 dated 27/6/2003. The appeal procedures under the Act and its regulations have not restricted any

class of decisions of DLHT but all of them may be subject of appeal.

The Civil Procedure Code is only applicable on two different circumstances.

First, is when the High Court deals with hearing of appeals including

production and admissibility of evidence then it should apply provisions of

the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 R.E. 2019 and the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E.

2019 respectively. Secondly, the DLHT may apply the Civil Procedure Code

when there are inadequacies in the Regulations.

This is in accordance with

the provisions of Section 51(1) and (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R.E. 2019. We have noted that the Act and its regulations provide for the right to appeal

against any decision or order; state the procedure; nature of documents

initiating the appeal; as well as time limitation for preferring such an appeal

from the date of delivery of decision.

The Appellants are challenging the failure by the Tribunal to entertain and determine application before it against the decision of the Ward Tribunal of Mtumba. In essence, the Appellants are not challenging execution order of the DLHT per se rather rejection by the Tribunal to determine the application

challenging the decision of the Ward Tribunal. This is despite the allegations

of illegality of the proceedings in the Ward Tribunal of Mtumba Further, the High Court position on which remedy between appeal and

revision is appropriate regarding execution order of DLHT is divergent. There

are one school of thought that execution order of execution from DLHT can

be challenged through revision only. That school of thought is demonstrated

in above cited cases. There is also a school that propounds that both appeal

and revision can apply depending on circumstances of a particular case.

 In the case of MARWA MUNGE versus JOHN RHOBA TEMBE, LAND REVISION NO. 2 OF 2021, [2021] TZHC 4186 (27 July 2021), Hon. Mkasimongwa, J.: noted (at pages 6-7 of the judgement) that:

The grave man of the objection raised by the Respondent’s counsel seems is the interpretation of section 38(1) of the

Land Disputes Courts Act [Cap 216 R.E. 2019] that the appeal to the High Court is the only remedy provided for to any party

who is aggrieved by a decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction. 

As such, Applicant ought to have instituted an Appeal and where he commenced Revisional proceedings he was in fault for a

revision is not an alternative of Appeal. With respect, this is not the correct position of the law …under the above provision of the law (Section 43(1) (b) of Cap 216 RE 2019)

the High Court have revisional powers in any proceedings determined in the District Land and Housing Tribunal in

exercise of its original, appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

The High Court in the abovementioned case, where the Applicant was

challenging an order of execution of DLHT, was of the view that either of the

two remedies may apply depending on prevailing circumstances. This was

regarding the Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent that according

to the Land Disputes Courts Act, Cap 216 R.E. 2019, the Applicant had an

avenue of appeal thus he should not have applied for revision as an

alternative to appeal.

The Court in its decision barred the Appellants from applying for the revision

on account of the availability of another remedy, that is an appeal. It would

be contradictory in terms to entertain this Preliminary Objection while

mindful of the fact that this Court has already determined that application

for revision is neither appropriate nor available remedy to the Appellants

except preferring the matter through appeal.