IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(LAND DIVISION)
AT DAR ES SALAAM
LAND APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2023
(Originatingfrom the Judgment and Decree in Land Application No. 331 of
2019 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Ilala District delivered on
12thJune 2023 by Hon. Mgulambwa)

JOSEPH STIVEN MUNIKO.................................. APPELLANT

VERSUS
EVA MAUSHI.................................................... 1st RESPONDENT

MOHAMED ABDALLA MBONDE........................ 2nd RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

Date of last order: 05/04/2024

Date of Ruling:12/4/2024

MWAIPOPO, J:
This appeal originates from the Judgment and Decree in Land

Application No. 331/2019 of the District Land and Housing Tribunal

for Ilala District delivered on 12thJune 2023 by Hon. Mgulambwa-

Chairman.

The Appellant herein was the Applicant in the said Application which

was filed against the Respondents claiming for the following reliefs: -

i. Declaration order be issued that the Applicant is the legal owner

of the suit land located at Kiboga A street Msongola Ward, Ilala

i
 Municipality Dar e salaam and the 1st Respondent is the-

trespasser to the land in dispute.

ii. Perpetual injunction be issued against the 1st Respondent to

restrain him or their agents or their workmen from trespass.

iii. Costs of this Application be paid by the Respondents.

iv. Any other relief (s) this Honorable court deems fit and just to

grant.

The respondents who were the defendants filed their written

statements of Defence where by the 2nd Respondent filed his

statement in support of the Application while the second

Respondent filed her statement to oppose the Application which

was also accompanied by the counterclaim. I her counter claim

she prayed for the following reliefs:

i. The Applicant be declared the lawful owner of the 14

acres inclusive the land measuring 70M*140M claimed by

the Respondents being and located at Mvuti area,

Kiboga A street, Msongola War, Ilala District, Dar es

salaam.

ii. Respondents be declared as trespassers

iii. An order for vacant possession

2
 iv. An order for payment of general damages at the tune of

40,000,000 Tanzanian shillings

v. An order for demolition of all structures illegally erected

into the Applicants land/premises

vi. An order permanently restricting the respondents or, their

agents not to do anything on the disputed land

vii. Payment of costs.

The defendants in the counter claim also filed their joint

written statement of defence to oppose the counterclaim.

The matter was heard by the Tribunal whereby in the course of hearing

two issues were framed as follows: -

i. Nani kati ya wadaawa ni mmiliki halali wa eneo bishaniwa.

ii. Je wadaawa wanastahili nafuu gani za kisheria.

Following the determination of the issues Tribunal dismissed the

Application with costs and allowed the counterclaim against the

Applicant with costs.

Aggrieved by the said decision the Appellant has filed a Memorandum of

Appeal containing five (5) grounds of Appeal as follows: -

3
 1. That the learned chairman erred in law and in fact by determining

the Application and issue judgment and decree without

jurisdiction.

2. That the learned chairman erred in law and in fact when he visited

the locus in quo without complying with proper procedures for

visiting the locus in quo

3. That the learned chairman erred in law and in fact for not taking

opinion from the assessors before composing the judgement as

required by law

4. That the learned chairman erred in law and in fact for failure to

evaluate properly the evidence tendered by the Appellant as a

j -i ■ -f ir
result came up with a wrong conclusion;

5. That the learned chairman erred in law and in fact by relying on

documents tendered by the 1st Respondent which were defective

The Appeal was argued by way of written submissions whereby the

Appellant was represented by learned Advocate Michael Kayombo and

learned Advocate Joana Mwalukindo represented the 1st Respondent.

The 2nd Respondent fended for himself. The Appellant and the 1st

Respondent complied with the hearing schedule and filed their

submissions on time while the 2nd Respondent did not file his

4
submissions therefore it is as good as they never appeared in court to

submit their defence.

In arguing his appeal, the Appellant began by abandoning ground no. 2,

4 and 5 of Appeal and therefore submitted on ground 1 and 3 of appeal

as follows: -

With regard to the 1st ground of appeal, the appellant submitted that the

case was first presided over by Hon. Rugarabamu Chairman until on

26/10/2021 when he withdrew on the ground that he had many cases to

determine in the DLHT for Kinondoni at Kinondoni as it can be seen on

page 10 of the proceedings of the Tribunal. Therefore, he returned the

case file to the in charge of the Tribunal for reassignment. On 17th

February 2022 Hon. Mgulambwa Chairman took over the case and

continued to determine it to its finality. Moreover, the proceedings are

silent as they do not show that the case was assigned to Hon.

Mgulambwa.

The Appellant submitted further that the record does not show that the

case was assigned to Hon. Mgulambwa after the withdrawal of Hon.

Rugarabamu and hence failure of Hon. Mgulambwa to record reasons

for taking over the case, therefore she took over the case without

5
jurisdiction hence the proceedings from where she started and the

judgment became a nullity.

In support of his submissions the Appellant referred this Honorable court

to the following authorities: the case of Josephine Mangala Msema

(As Legal and personal representative of Rev. Saddock Yakobo

Mlongecha, the deceased) vs the Registered Trustees of Pefa,

Kigoma Civil Appeal No. 490 of 2021 (unreported) the Court of

Appeal of Tanzania at Tabora. In the said case at page 11 para 2, the

court stated: -

In Leticia Mwombeki Vs Faraja Safarali and two others Civil

Appeal No. 133/2019 (unreported) we observed that silence of

the record as to how the court file found its way from the

predecessor Judge to the successor Judge puts the test of

integrity and transparency of the proceedings in question. It

■ •*. .

was also observed that where the successor judicial officer

takes over the proceedings without assigning reasons,

whatever he does in the case he does it without jurisdiction arid

the omission goes to the roof of the matter.

Regarding the 2nd ground of Appeal the Appellant has submitted that,

the learned chairman did not take the opinion from the assessors before

6
composing the judgment. In the judgment the learned chairman

indicated that she took into account opinion of assessors. The Appellant

has submitted that no opinions were given by the assessors which can

be found in the record (proceedings) of the Tribunal. What can be seen

from the proceedings is the acknowledgment of the learned chairman

that the opinions were read on 12 June 2023 in the presence of the

Applicant, 1st Respondent and his Advocate but in the absence of the 2nd

Respondent without Notice. This can be noted from the proceedings

recorded on 12thJune 2023. The Appellant has begged the question as to

which opinions the learned chairman was refereeing to while no opinions

can be found in the proceedings of the Tribunal.

The Appellant has contended further that if the opinions were given by

the assessors as indicated by the learned chairman in the proceedings

- JI1U
and in the Judgment those opinions must be recorded in the

proceedings. Since no opinions can be found in the proceedings it

means no opinions were given by assessors before composing the

Judgment. In support of his submissions the Appellant referred this

Honorable court to the case of Elilumba Eliezel vs John Jaja Civil

Appeal No. 30 of 2020 (unreported) CAT sitting at Dodoma. In that

7
case at page 13 para 1 of the Judgment the court stated as follows,

among other things, on opinions of assessors.

"As stated earlier, since the assessor's opinion referred to

by the chairman of the Tribunal as reflected above can not

be located in the record of appeal, it is as good as not

being there".

The Appellant further referred the Court to another case of Makara

Nakudana vs Aningoi Orgumi original Civil Appeal No 177 of

2019 (unreported) the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha stated

at page 8 para 1 referring to the case of Ameir Mbaraka and Another

vs Edga Kahwili Civil Appeal No. 154/2015 unreported that: -

........ It is highly unsafe to assume the opinion of assessors

which is not on the record regardless of the chairman

acknowledgment in the judgment. Thus, it is our considered

view that in the event the assessors did not give opinions for

consideration in composing the Judgment of the DLHT, this is a

fatal irregularity in the circumstances as correctly submitted by

Mr. Mbura the Judgments of the two courts below are a nullity

and cannot be spared. We are fortified that in that account

because the proceedings before the High Court and the

8
resulting impugned judgment both stem on null proceedings

and judgement of the DLHT.

Submitting in rebuttal, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent

vehemently objected to the submissions put forth by Appellant.

With regarding to the 1st ground of appeal, that the learned chairman

erred in law and in fact by determining the Application and issue

Judgment and Decree without jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the

1st Respondent submitted that, the perception by the Appellant that

Hon. Mgulambwa as a Chairperson could not proceed with the matter

unless she had recorded reason (s) for her taking the conduct of the

matter, is wrong since until Rugarabamu was transferred no witness had

testified. As much as there was no evidence recorded by Rugarabamu as

the presiding Chairperson no one was prejudiced if that is said to be an

omission to the proceedings.

The learned counsel cited order VII Rule 10 (1) of the CPC Cap RE 2019

which states: -

" Where a judge or magistrate is prevented by death, transfer or

other cause from concluding the trial of a suit, his assessor may

deal with any evidence or memorandum taken down or made

under the foregoing rules as if such evidence or memorandum has

9
 been taken down or made by him or under his direction under the

said rules and may proceed with the suit from the stage at which

his predecessor left."

The learned counsel stated that the said provision suggests that the said

provision suggests that the one who takes over the trial ofa-case 4n

which one or more witnesses have testified a predecessor judge or

magistrate to record reasons for him or her to take over the trial but in

the present case the vacated Chairperson never heard any witness or

recorded any evidence as contended. That there was no need of

making any reason simply because the previous Chairperson has stated

the reasons for returning the case file to the incharge (Mgulambwa and

furthermore, there was no evidence recorded yet to make a

presumption of prejudicing any party to the proceedings. What matters

is substantial justice. There is no way one would hold that there was any

irregularity in the proceedings when Mgulambwa Chairperson took over

as a new presiding officer. This was also said by the Court of Appeal of

Tanzania in the case of Eco Bank Tanzania Ltd vs future Trading

company Ltd Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2019 unreported.

Regarding the 3rd ground of Appeal, that the Tribunal Chairperson did

not take assessors opinion. The learned counsel argued that this

io
assumption is wrong since the records are very clear that the assessors

who sat with the chairperson were Mr. Matimbwa and Ms Fanisa and all

of them composed their opinion and read before the Judgement was

delivered. Regulation 19 (2) of the Land Disputes Courts (DLHT

Regulations) GN No. 174/2003 states that: -

1. Notwithstanding sub regulation (1) the chairperson shall

before make any Judgment require every assessor present

at the conclusion of hearing to give his opinion in writing

and the assessor may give his opinion in Kiswahili.

The learned counsel argued that the Tribunal did comply with the legal

requirement made under regulation 19 (1) of the land dispute courts,

the District Land and Housing Tribunal GN No 174/2003. Moreover, he

argued further that assessors' opinions are not binding to the

chairperson when composing his Judgment. This is clearly stated under

Section 24 of the Land Disputes Court Act Cap 216 RE 2019 that: -

In reaching decisions, the chairman shall take into account

. . - the
.. r - ,

opinion of the assessors but shall not be bound by it, except

that the chairman shall in the Judgment give the reasons for

differing with such opinion.

ii
The learned counsel contended that the law does not impose any

condition that once there is a written opinion of an assessor then it

should be reproduced in the Judgment and this is not the requirement of <

the law. He argued that the Appellant is conceding that on 12th June

2023 Assessors opinions were read in his presence. The opinion and the

decision are not at variable with the judgment thus he cannot give any

reason.

In conclusion the learned counsel flor the 1st Respondent submitted that

the Appeal has no merit hence it should be dismissed with costs.

In rejoinder the Appellant reiterated his submissions, emphasizing on

the first ground of appeal that Hon. Rugarabamu withdrew from the

case and no appointment order or reassignment order was recorded in

the file/proceedings when Hon. Mgulambwa took over the matter.

Regarding the 3rd ground of appeal, the Appellant rejoined that, the 1st

Respondents submissions on the 3rd ground of Appeal that the law does

not require the opinion of assessors to be reproduced in the Judgment

has been made out of context because the Appellant in his submissions

in chief did not submit that assessors opinion must be produced in the

judgment. The Appellant submitted that opinion of Assessors must be

recorded in the proceedings of the Tribunal and authorities supporting

12
such positions were cited in the submissions in chief. The Appellant

referred the court to the case of Debe Katika Ibata and Another vs

John Katika Ibata Land Appeal 25 of 2023 (unreported). High

court of Tanzania Land Division at Shinyanga. In that case at page

10 para 2, this Court was referred to the case of Hosea Andrea

Mushungi (Administrator of the late Hosea Mushongi vs Charles

Gambagamba in which the court observed that: -

.... If such opinions do not feature in the proceedings their

acknowledgment in the Judgment is not acceptable...

In conclusion the Appellant prayed for the Tribunal's decision to be

quashed and set aside and him be declared the lawful owner of the

disputed land, and the 1st Respondent be ordered to pay costs of the

Appeal and the Tribunal below.

Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, the broad...-

question to be determined is whether this Appeal has merit. In

determining this Appeal, I will begin with ground of no 3 of Appeal.

With regard to this ground, the Appellant has contended that contrary to

what has been indicated in the Judgement, the learned chairman erred

in law and in fact for not recording in the proceedings or taking down

the opinion from the assessors before composing the judgment as

13
required by law. The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has

contended on his part that the said assertion by the Appellant is not true

since the Assessors (Mr. Matimbwa and Ms. Fanisa) composed their

opinions and read them before the Judgment was delivered and that the

chairperson did comply with the regulation 19 (2) of the Land Disputes

Courts (DLHT) GN No. 179/2003 and that such opinions are not binding

to the chairperson. The learned counsel further argued that the law

does not impose any condition that once there is written opinion of an

assessor then it should be reproduced in the Judgment and this is not

the requirement of the law.

In dealing with this ground of Appeal, I have gone through the records

of the Tribunal and revisited the relevant law(s) and come up with the

issue as to whether the assessors were properly involved during the

hearing and at the conclusion of the trial before the DLHT:

Section 23(1) of and (2) of the Land Disputes Courts Act provides for

the composition of the DLHT as follows:

(1) The District Land and Housing Tribunal established

under section 22 shall be composed of one chairman

and not less than two assessors.

14
 (2) The District Land and Housing Tribunal shall be duly

constituted when held by a Chairman and two assessors

who shall be required to give out their opinion before

the chairman reaches the Judgment.

The above provision of the law provides in clear terms that the DLHT by

the Chairman and not less than two assessors and that the role of the

assessors as provided under sub section (2) is to give out the opinions

before the chairman reaches the judgment. Regulation 19(2) of the

Regulations specifies the form and language of such opinion it provides:

"19(2) Notwithstanding sub regulation (1) the chairman

shall, before making his Judgment, require every

assessor present at the conclusion of the hearing to give

his opinion in writing and the assessors may give his

opinion in Kiswahili".

If follows that, at the conclusion of the trial, the chairman is obliged to

require every assessor present give his opinion in writing before

composing his judgement and such opinion may be in Kiswahili

language.

is
In the present appeal, I have gathered from the record of appeal that,

when the defence case was closed by the Chairman of the DLHT, he

gave an order for receiving opinion of assessors and Judgment on 12th

June, 2023. The said order reads as follows: -

AMRI:

Maoni na Hukumu

12/6/2023 saa 8:30 mchana

Signed

18/4/2023

On 12th June, 2023 the record shows that both opinion of assessors and

Judgment were both read in front of the parties i.e. the Appellant and

the 1st Respondent. The Advocate the 2nd Respondent was absent

without notification. The records read as follows: -

12/06/2023

Akidi - M. Mgulambwa, Mwenyekiti

Wajumbe - 1. Matimbwa

2. Fanisa

Mwombaji: Yupo Ms. Joan Mwakinga

16
 Mjibu Maombi 1: Raphael Daima

2. Hayupo

Karani: Alice

Baraza: Tumekuja kwa maoni na hukumu.

Signed

12/6/2023

MdakTuko tayari

Ms. John: Niko tayari

Baraza: Wazee wa Baraza Mzee Matimbwa na Mama Fanisi wamesoma

maoni yao na baada ya muda nimesoma hukumu. Vyote maoni na

hukumu vimesomwa na mdai na mdaiwa No. 1 na Wakili wake.

Mdaiwa no. 2 hayupo bila taarifa.

Signed . ,

12/6/2023

Thereafter in the record of the proceedings, what followed thereafter

was the reading of the Judgment on the same day and using the same

Coram.

17
I have perused all the records of the proceedings and found no trace of

the handwritten copies of the opinion of the Assessors in the Tribunal's

file or any record or extract to that effect. What is only available in the

proceedings is the record to the effect that "The said opinions were c

read". I have also observed that in the Judgment of the Tribunal on

page 7 of the Judgement and 9 the Hon. Chairperson acknowledged the

opinion of the assessors in the following terms.

"Kwa upande mwingine sikubaliana na maoni ya wazee kwani

hawajatambua umiliki wa mdaiwa Na. 2 ambao ni wa muda

mrefu.

Also, on page 9 where the Tribunal stated: - ,

"Maoni na hukumu imesomwa mbele ya mdai, mdaiwa No. 1 na

Wakili wake, mdaiwa Na. 2 hayupo bila taarifa".

However, on my part I have failed to find in the record of Appeal the

said assessor's opinion in writing as required by the law. Furthermore,

from the extract of the Tribunal's record, there is no record to show that

the assessors gave their said opinions to the parties before the

chairman delivered the Judgement. What is seen from the record is that

on the same date which was fixed for Judgement the assessors were

18
also set to give their opinions. I have also observed from the

proceedings that the Coram for two activities or sessions is the same,

indicating that, when the assessors finished giving their opinions,

immediately thereafter the chairperson proceeded in the same Coram to

give out her Judgment contrary to what she has stated that she gave

her judgement afterwards while there is no any other different coram in

the proceedings to that effect. It cannot thus be gleaned at what time

did the chairperson incorporated or considered the said opinions in her

Judgement. But secondly as allude to above, there is no record of the

said opinions in writing as required by the law. In the case of Alakara

Nakudana (supra) the Court of Appeal of Tanzania while citing with

approval the case of Sebastian Kuduke vs. Mamlaka ya Maji Safi

na Maji Taka, Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2018 (unreported) and the

case of Ameir Mbaraka and Another vs. Edga Kahwili, Civil

Appeal No. 154 of 2015 (unreported) the court held that:-

It is highly in state to assume the opinions of the assessors

which is not on the record regardless of the chairman's

acknowledgement in the Judgement. Thus, it is our considered

view that, in the event the assessors did not give opinions for

consideration in composing the Judgment of the DLHT, then

19
this is a fatal irregularity. In the circumstances, as correctly

submitted by Mr. Mbura, the Judgements of the two courts

below are a nullity and cannot be spared. We are fortified in

that account because the proceedings before the High Court

and the resulting impugned. Judgment both stem on null

proceedings and Judgement of the DLHT.

The CAT went on to state in the said case that, in the case of Tubone

Mwambeta vs. Mbeya City Council, Civil Appeal No. 287 of 2017.

The Court emphasized the need to require every assessor to give his

opinion and the opinion be put on record.

As to how the assessors should be give opinions, it has been clarified by

the CAT in several other decisions such as Tubone Mwambeta vs.

Mbeya City Council, Civil Appeal No. 287 of 2017 4.5. Chawala &

Co. Ltd vs Dr. Abbas Teherali, Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2017 and Edna

Adam Kibona vs Absolom Swebe (sheli), Civil Appeal No. 286 of

2017 all (unreported) this court has persistently held that:

We wish to recap at this stage that in trials before the DLHT,

as a matter of law, assessors must fully participate at the

conclusion of evidence, in terms of Regulation 19(2) of the

Regulations, the chairman of the DLHT must require every one

20
of them to give his opinion in writing it may be in Kiswahili.

That opinion, must be in the record and must be read to the

parties before the Judgment is composed"

These cases have been cited with approval in the case of Josephine

Mangala (As legal and personal representative of Rev. Sadock) in the

present case, the requirements of Regulation 19(2) of the DLHT

Regulations have not been complied with since the opinions of the

assessors are not available in writing in the proceedings, they are not in

the record. It is not known under which basis the same were read and

on which written document the chairperson based its Judgment from or

considered the opinion of the assessors. Indeed, in the case of Tubone

Mwambeta (supra) the CAT emphasized the following: -

In view of the settled position of the law, where the trial has to

be conducted with the aid of assessors they must actually and

effectively participate in the proceedings so as to make

meaningful their role of giving their opinion before the

Judgment is composed ... since. Regulation 19(2) of the

Regulations requires every assessor present at the trial at the

conclusion of the hearing to give "his opinion in writing, such

opinion must be availed in the presence of the parties so as to

21
enable them to know the nature of the opinion and whether or

not such opinion has been considered by the chairman in the

final verdict.

See also the case of Alakara Nakudana (supra).

Furthermore, as cited by the Appellant, in the case of Debe

Kasika ibara (supra) and Hosea Andrea Mushungi

(Administrator of the late Hosea Mushungi (supra) the

Court observed that;

"... If such opinions do not feature, in the proceedings,

their acknowledgement in the Judgment is not

acceptable".

Therefore, in the absence of the written opinions of assessors in the

proceedings, whatever that has been cited by the chairperson in the

proceedings is not acceptable. This very court has been denied the

opportunity to know exactly what transpired in the Tribunal as far as

opinions of assessors are concerned and it is not known whether what

was stated by the Chairman in the Judgment reflects such opinions. In

the case of Dede Kasika Ibara (supra) the Court held on P2 10 that:

"Subsequently in this Application, there were

mentioning of in corporating the opinion of assessors

22
 in the Judgment by the chairman without the same

being highlighted in the proceedings amount of

fundamental error which in my view occasioned

miscarriage ofjustice to the parties.

In the case of Elilumba Eliezel vs. John Jafa Civil Appeal No. 30 of

2020 CAT Dodoma

The Court observed on page 11 that: -

"It has to be noted that the opinion given by

assessors sitting in the Tribunal has to be

recorded regardless of whether the chairman

agrees or disagrees with it. Nevertheless, if the

chairman disagrees with the opinion of one of the

assessors or both of them, the law requires him

to record the reasons for such disagreement in

his decision and not to reflect them completely.

Failure to do so is tantamount to sitting without

the aid ofassessors."

In real sense, as stated above, if the assessor's opinion is not recorded

at all in the proceedings it is difficult for the appellate court to gauge

whether they gave their opinion or not, especially when the decision of

23
the Tribunal purports that they gave their opinion. In my settled

position, it is not enough for the chairman of the Tribunal to refer,

concur or agree with the assessor's opinion in the Judgement while the

said opinion is nowhere to be found in the proceedings of the Tribunal

as in the case at hand. Consideration of assessor's opinion in the

Judgment go hand in hand with recording their opinions during

proceedings for future reference.

« - • W - ■ ■- - •

The effect of failure to record assessor's opinion was also stated in the

case of Peter Makuri vs Michael Magwega Civil Appeal No. 107 of

2019 (unreported) in the following terms: -

"Failing to receive the assessors opinion in the

Tribunal decision as is the case in the instant

case, regardless whether the chairman agreed or

not with the opinion, is a fatal omission that goes

to the root of the matter, consequently vitiating

the proceedings".

Page 10 of the Tribunal's Judgment, reflects exactly what is stated in the

bolded part of the above quoted decision. Having composed her

Judgment, without recording assessors' opinion in the proceedings, first,

24
the chairman of the Tribunal purported to agree with non-existing

assessors opinions when she the stated: -

"kwa upande mwingine sikubaHana na maoni ya wazee

kwani hawajatambua umHiki wa mdaiwa Na. 2 ambao ni

wa muda mrefu.”

Since the assessors opinions referred to by the Chairperson of the

Tribunal as reflected above cannot be located in the record of appeal or

proceedings then it is as good as not being there, it is as good as she

sat without the presence of the assessors. In any case, the fact that the

assessors gave no opinion for consideration by the Chairman of the

Tribunal before composing the Judgment is a fatal omission that goes to

the root of the matter at hand to the extent of vitiating proceedings as I

hereby hold. The said irregularity has rendered the Judgment,

proceedings and Decree of the Tribunal a nullity on account of non­

involvement of assessors because the chairman alone had no jurisdiction

to adjudicate and determine the Application before her. Thus, it follows

that this ground alone is capable of disposing the appeal and I don't see

the need of determining the other ground of appeal raised by the

Appellant.

25
Consequently, I allow the appeal; quash the Judgment, proceedings and

decree of the Tribunal. In lieu thereof I order for an expedited retrial

before another chairman and a different set of assessors. The same be -

conducted within a span of seven months from the date of the order.

Considering that neither of the parties is to blame for the cause that has

led to the outcome of this appeal I make no order as to costs.

DATED at DAR ES SALAAM, this 12th day of April, 2022.

S.D. Mwaipopo

JUDGE

12/04/2024

The Judgment is delivered this 12th day of April 2024 in the Presence of

Michael Kayombo, learned Advocate for Appellant, 1st Respondent and in

the Absence of 2nd Respondent is hereby certified as a true copy of the

original.

S.D. Mwaipopo

JUDGE

12/04/2024

26