IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

(LAND DIVISION)

AT DAR ES SALAAM

LAND CASE NO. 4379 OF 2024

JUDITH NGONELLA……………………………………….………PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SCOLASTIKA ADELHARDUS MUKAJANGA……………1st DEFENDANT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………....2nd DEFENDANT

BAGAMOYO DISTRICT COUNCIL…………......……….3rd DEFENDANT

COMMISSIONER FOR LANDS………………………..….4th DEFENDANT

THE REGISTRAR OF TITLE…………………………..…..5th DEFENDANT

PETER PETER JUNIOR………………………………….…6th DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT
Date of last Order: 10/07/2025
Date of Ruling: 31/07/2025

LALTAIKA, J.

The plaintiff herein JUDITH NGONELLA instituted this suit against

the above-named Defendants praying for the following relief(s):

(i) A declaration that the 4th piece of land consisting of 900 Sqm each
which make total of 3600 sqm. Located at Nianjema A Hamlet, Nianjema
Ward in Bagamoyo District boundary with Msichoke Pembe in the East
part, Juma Mohamed in the West part, the road in the South part and

1
 the road in North part now is known as plot no 818 and 819 Block C'
Nianjema Bagamoyo 5 Arban Area which is registered in the name of
the 1st defendant, is belongs to plaintiff.
(ii) A declaration that the defendants is a trespasser in the suit land,
Declaration that the Survey Plan No. 90170 plot No. 818 and 819 titled
No. 179213 and 179209 Block C Nianjema Bagamoyo Urban areas be
null and void being made from the forgery document of the 6th
defendant.
(iii) Order that the 8th defendant unlawfully sold the suit land to 1st
defendant Order of permanently injunction restrain the defendants, their
agents or any person acting or working on their behalf from further
trespass into plaintiff suit land, Order of demolition of the blocks fance
erected by the 1st defendant and any structure therein.
(iv) Order of eviction from the suit land.
(v) Payment of general damages compensation for loss of use of land sum
of Tsh. 50,000,000/= to be condemn to the 1st and 6th defendants.
(vi) Any other relief (s) this honorable court may deem fit and just to grant.

Representation by counsel was as follows: Ms. Esther Mosha,

learned Advocates appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Allen Nanyaro (Assisted

by Ms. Tabitha Maina), learned Advocates appeared for the 1st and 6th

Defendants. Ms. Selina Kapange, learned Senior State Attorney represented

the 2nd to 5th Defendants. I take this opportunity to register my appreciation

to the Learned Advocates for their dedication and commitment.

2
 On commencement of the hearing, Counsel assisted this court in

formulating the following issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff has any rightful claim to the land registered as PLOT NO 818
and 819 under Certificate of Title No 179213 and 179209 BLOCK C Nianjema
Bagamoyo respectively.
2. Whether the Defendants are trespassers to the land registered as PLOT NO 818
and 819 under Certificate of Title No 179213 and 179209 BLOCK C Nianjema
Bagamoyo respectively.
3. Whether the 1st Defendant is the rightful owner of the the land registered as PLOT
NO 818 and 819 under Certificate of Title No 179213 and 179209 BLOCK C
Nianjema Bagamoyo respectively.
4. Whether the procedure for transfer of land title to the 1st Defendant was lawful.
5. To what reliefs and to what extent are the parties entitled to.

Pursuant to the principle obtained in our jurisdiction that he who

alleges must prove (See section 110 of the Evidence Act Cap 6 R.E. 2019),

as articulated by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in BERELIA

KARANGIRANGI VS. ASTERIA NYALAMBWA CIVIL APPEAL No 237

of 2017 (unreported) the ball was on the court of the plaintiff to prove

existence of the facts alleged to enable this court to give verdict as prayed.

In line with the above, the plaintiffs paraded three witnesses and

tendered six exhibits. The plaintiff’s case, as built up through the three

witnesses, is summarized below.

3
 PW1 was Judith Ngonella, Resident of Mikocheni B Dar es es

Salaam. PW1 testified that she was in court due to trespass over her land

located at Nia Njema A in Bagamoyo. According to her, the “invasion” was

carried out by the 1st and 6th Defendants, Scholastica and Peter, respectively.

She recounted that on 3rd December 2008, one Bashiru Juma

Manka had visited her tailoring office to collect clothes she had sewn for

him, and he informed her about a farm that was on sale. She stated that she

had previously asked him to notify her in case any farm came up for sale.

Bashiru told her that the owner of the land was one Tesha Volustan.

She stated that they agreed to meet on 5th February 2008 in

Bagamoyo and did so. Bashiru took her to Nia Njema A, where he indicated

the suit land measuring 29 acres. They met an elderly man called Novat

who assisted in showing her the land. She selected four plots, each

measuring 900 square meters, and requested time to investigate the land.

She testified that she consulted a neighbour named Msichoke, who

confirmed that the land belonged to Tesha and that he had also witnessed

the sale contract between Tesha and the original owner, Hussein Amini.

4
 Subsequently, PW1 narrated, she contacted Bashiru to instruct Tesha

to prepare a sale contract. A meeting was scheduled for 12th December

2008 at Nia Njema A, with the arrangement involving herself, Bashiru,

and Novat. On that date, she went with the agreed purchase amount of four

million Tanzanian Shillings. Tesha arrived with a typed contract. She signed

it in the presence of witnesses: Juma Mohamed Selemani for the seller

and Bashiru Juma Manka for herself. She stated that she was in

possession of the contract and prayed for its admission into evidence. The

court admitted the contract titled “Mkataba wa Mauzo ya Kiwanja cha

Nia Njema” dated 12/12/2008 between Tesha E. Volustan and Judith

Ngonela as Exhibit P1.

PW1 further explained that the land was bordered by a road to the

North and South, with Juma Mohamed Selemani to the West and Msichoke

Rashid Pembe to the East. After the purchase, she examined the land’s

plantations, which included mango and cashew trees. She purchased poles

and marked the land.

She added that she instructed Juma Mohamed Selemani to care for the

land, allowing him to cultivate seasonal crops. There were no issues until

5
2017, when Juma reported that some individuals, including the 1st

Defendant, had been seen roaming the area. Although she went to

investigate, she found no one. Juma had informed them that the land had

an owner meaning herself.

PW1 claimed that in 2023, the same individuals returned and

began cutting down trees with a chainsaw and uprooting her poles. She

attempted to engage with them, but the 1st Defendant asserted

ownership, claiming to have purchased the land from the 6th Defendant.

After confrontations, she reported the matter to the police, who advised her

to pursue the matter in the Land Court.

PW1 narrated that she contacted Tesha to ask why the land had been

sold again. Tesha allegedly told her to verify if the seller was Peter Peter

Junior, stating that any sale by him would be futile as he had been

convicted in Criminal Case No. 365 of 2015 and had lost on appeal in

Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2017. PW1 stated that Peter Peter Junior is the

6th Defendant and resides in Bagamoyo. She prayed to tender them as

evidence.The court admitted the said court decisions as Exhibit

6
P2 (Criminal Case No. 365 of 2015, Bagamoyo District Court) and Exhibit

P3 (Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2017, High Court of Tanzania).

PW1 testified that she had warned the 1st Defendant about buying land

from an untrustworthy person, but the 1st Defendant had disregarded her.

That is why she instituted the present suit. She added that she sued the 1st

Defendant and also the 2nd , 3rd , 4th , and 5th Defendants, who are

government institutions responsible for surveying and issuing title deeds.

She had written letters to them, which were not replied to. She prayed to

tender those letters and confirmed she could identify them by her signature

and full name, as well as those of the Defendants. The court admitted the

letters of intention to sue dated 4/4/2023 as Exhibit P4(a), P4(b), and

P4(c).

She further testified that she filed the case and that the seller, Tesha,

remained cooperative. Tesha had informed her of the 6th Defendant’s

criminal record and encouraged her to continue defending her land. She

alleged that the 1st Defendant had since built a wall, and she was no

longer allowed to access the land. She prayed that the court rely on her

testimony and the evidence tendered in support of her plaint.

7
 In cross-examination, PW1 confirmed that she purchased land with

plots measuring 900 square meters from Tesha. She acknowledged stating

in her plaint that she owned Plots 218 and 219 but clarified that her name

appeared on the sale document, which was prepared by lawyers.

She admitted being confused about the plot numbers since no

formal plots had been demarcated at the time of purchase. She agreed that

Plots 818 and 819 were registered in the 1st Defendant’s name and did not

dispute the difference in measurement of 409 square meters, which was

mentioned in the Written Statement of Defence (WSD). She acknowledged

that she had not addressed the measurement discrepancy either in her

pleadings or in her oral testimony. She reiterated that she had

tendered Exhibit P2 to show the 6th Defendant’s criminal conviction.

When asked about Exhibit P2, she admitted that the case file did not

mention the suit land or its location and that although she read portions

referring to Nia Njema B, she had not explained the disparity between the

locations. She stated she had no reason for doing so and was unfamiliar

with Exhibit P2. She admitted stating in paragraph 12 of her plaint that

8
some documents were forged but confirmed she had not produced the said

document or explained why she had chosen not to.

PW1 acknowledged that although the sale took place between

2009 and 2010, she instituted the case on 1st March 2024 and had

not explained in her testimony what she had been doing in the interim. She

admitted raising concerns in paragraph 14 of the plaint about the procedures

for survey, acquisition, and registration, but could not recall if she had

explained those in her testimony.

PW1 confirmed her knowledge of the land boundaries, noting that

Msichoke had since sold his land. She admitted she was uncertain whether

only the 1st and 6th Defendants bordered the disputed land. She also

conceded that although Exhibit P1 bore her signature, it named

Bashiru Juma Manka as the buyer. She did not raise this issue during

her examination-in-chief.

Regarding due diligence, she admitted not recalling whether the plaint

mentioned this investigation. She acknowledged that her pleadings had been

read to her, including references to poles, chainsaws, and police reports,

though she was not given any documentation by the police. She recalled

9
hearing about a valuation of TZS 350 million but stated she did not

know what a valuation report was and had not been asked if she wished to

produce one. She stated that ownership of land is proven by title, provided

proper procedures were followed.

In additional cross-examination by Ms. Kapange, PW1 testified that

she used a tape measure to determine the land’s size. She asserted that the

seller, Tesha, was a Land Officer at Bagamoyo and a retiree now living in

Pemba, although she did not mention this in the plaint. She identified her

signature on Exhibit P1 but admitted that the document listed Bashiru

Juma Manka as the buyer. She confirmed conducting due diligence by

consulting neighbours and said the sale occurred at Nia Njema A. She

admitted never contacting local government authorities prior to the land’s

invasion and only did so after the incident. She had one letter to that effect.

She stated that Tesha was the complainant in the criminal cases

she cited but denied knowing which documents were forged, as she had not

referred to them in court. She also confirmed never conducting a search with

either the Registrar of Titles or the Commissioner for Lands and did not raise

any issues regarding survey procedures. She affirmed that the matter had

10
once been brought before the court and that a preliminary objection had

been upheld. She said she had written to the 1st and 6th Defendants, but

clarified that they were summons, not letters.

She contended that the Defendants had breached the proper

procedure by failing to obtain sale documents between the 1st and 6th

Defendants. As for her claim of TZS 350 million, she attributed the

amount to the time elapsed since the land’s purchase but had no valuation

report to support the claim.

In re-examination, PW1 stated that she was informed by Bashiru and

Novatus that Tesha was a Land Officer, a fact she inferred from the

organized layout of the land. She also testified that she came to learn about

alleged forgery committed by the 6th Defendant in favour of the 1st

Defendant.

PW2 was Novati Simon Rwelamila, Resident of Kinduchi

Mtongani, Kinondoni, Dar es Salaam. He testified that he came to know

the Plaintiff in 2008, although he could not recall the specific month. He

explained that he had received a phone call from Tesha Ephrain Volustian,

informing him that there were clients who wished to purchase plots from his

11
subdivided land located in the Nianjema area. Tesha further informed him

that a person named Bashiru would be arriving, accompanied by the Plaintiff.

He stated that he received Bashiru and the Plaintiff at the suit land, as

he was at the time cultivating a nearby shamba. He recalled that back in

1998, he had requested to cultivate a farm belonging to an Arab named

Amini Hussein. In the year 2000, Amini informed him that their cultivation

arrangement would be terminated because he intended to sell the land. PW2

said he requested to buy the four acres he had been cultivating, but Amini

declined, stating that the entire 29 acres was to be sold to a single customer,

which included the part he was cultivating.

PW2 told the court that he then escorted the Plaintiff and Bashiru to

the suit land and showed them the area. According to him, Judith and

Bashiru preferred the flat section of the land, which happened to be the area

he had been cultivating. He recalled that the Plaintiff expressed interest in

approximately 3,000 square meters. At that time, Tesha had already

subdivided the land into smaller plots. The Plaintiff indicated that she would

proceed with the purchase and left to meet Tesha.

12
 PW2 confirmed that he became acquainted with Tesha after the

latter had bought the land from Amini. He had asked Tesha for

permission to continue cultivating a portion of the land, and Tesha agreed.

PW2 stated that he farmed there until 2008, when Tesha subdivided the land

into plots.

During cross-examination, PW2 maintained that the 29 acres he

referred to had not been owned by anyone other than Tesha. He considered

himself to have been quite familiar with the area. He asserted that his

testimony was truthful. However, he admitted that he had not reviewed the

pleadings in the present case and therefore was unaware of how the suit

land and its size had been described therein.

During further cross-examination by Ms. Kapange, PW2 confirmed that

he had not personally witnessed the sale transaction. He stated that he was

later informed by Tesha that the land had been sold. He further testified

that he did not know who the neighbours were at the time, as the

land was very large. He also said Tesha had not disclosed the specific size

of the land that was sold. PW2 was not re-examined.

13
 PW3 was Juma Mohamed Selemani, Resident of Nianjema A

Bagamoyo, Entrepreneur. He stated during examination-in-chief that

he knew the Plaintiff as his neighbour, and that she owned land in the same

area where he lived, namely Nianjema A, Nianjema Ward, in Bagamoyo. He

testified that he had known her since 12th December 2008, which was the

day he first saw her. According to him, she arrived in the area at around

10:00 hours and appeared to be surveying a nearby piece of land. PW3 said

he approached her and inquired what she was looking for, to which she

replied that someone had informed her that the land was up for sale. He

recalled that she had been brought there by someone she identified as the

caretaker and administrator of the area, although he himself could not

remember that person's name.

PW3 further stated that upon inquiring, the Plaintiff told him that one

Tesha intended to sell her a residential plot. When she mentioned the name

Ndungu Tesha Ephraim Volustan, it reminded him that this person was

the original owner of the land in question and had also been his neighbour.

He described the land at issue as being approximately 3,600 square

meters in size. As a neighbour, PW3 claimed he was involved as one of the

14
witnesses during the sale process and that they confirmed the size of the

land. He added that a preliminary measurement was conducted and it

confirmed the land to be 3,600 square meters. However, he recalled

that the seller later reduced the size to 3,100 square meters, after

excluding the area designated for a road on the northern and southern sides.

According to PW3, his understanding of the ensuing conflict stemmed

from events following the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the land. He asserted that,

at the time of purchase, the land contained permanent crops, including 10

cashew trees, 2 mango trees, and 6 palm trees. He said he personally

cultivated seasonal crops on the land between 2008 and 2017. At some point,

he saw a woman, whom he identified as the Defendant, although he claimed

not to know her name, come to the land.

PW3 claimed he asked the woman if there was any issue, and that she

responded by saying she had purchased the land and intended to clear it.

He testified that she proceeded to uproot all the trees he had earlier

mentioned. He reported the incident to the Plaintiff, who came and

confronted the Defendant about the matter. He recalled that the clearing

activity ceased thereafter.

15
 He continued to narrate that nothing happened until 2023, when the

same woman reappeared and constructed a wall around the land. PW3

stated that he informed the Plaintiff once more, and she came to the site,

observed the developments, and subsequently took legal action, which he

believed included the filing of the present case.

PW3 also gave a description of the land boundaries. He said that on

the north, the suit land bordered the property of Msichoke Rashidi Pembe;

to the west, he himself was the neighbour and identified his full name as

Juma Mohamed Selemani; to the north, it bordered a Mtaa road; and to the

south, another Mtaa trail.

During cross-examination by Mr. Nanyaro, PW3 affirmed that the

land was initially 3,600 square meters but was later reduced to 3,100 square

meters following the removal of land intended for a road. However, he

clarified that the roads did not exist at the time of the sale. He reiterated

that he was among those who witnessed the sale agreement.

PW3 confirmed that he could read and write in Kiswahili. He

acknowledged that the document described the northern and southern

boundaries as “Barabara za Mtaa” (Mtaa roads). He maintained that,

16
although these roads were mentioned, they had not been physically

constructed at the time “hazija chongwa.” He confirmed that the name of

the buyer written on the document was Bashiru Juma Manka. He also stated

that his lawyer had not given him the exhibit for clarification prior to court

proceedings.

When asked about his residential status, PW3 insisted that he was

indeed a neighbour to the suit land. He stated that if the Court were to

conduct a site visit, they would find him there, as he had a house on the

western side and lived there. He was not sure if there was a school in

the vicinity and denied the presence of any unfinished multi-storey

building (“ghorofa”). He stated that such structures would not be found

even if the Court visited the area at that time.

In further cross-examination by Ms. Kapange, PW3 testified that

he had lived in that area since 2002 and that he owned two houses located

in two different vitongoji (sub villages). He confirmed that he was a witness

to the seller, Mr. Tesha. However, he stated that he was not present during

the designation of the roads and was not involved in determining their sizes.

17
Hesitating heavily, he admitted that he had no evidence concerning

the size of the roads that had led to the reduction in the land size.

On closure of the plaintiff’s case, the Defendant’s case commenced.

The next part is a summary of the Defendant’s case.

DW1 was Scholastica Adelhardus Mukajanga, Retired Civil

Servant. DW1 stated that she was in court because the Plaintiff had instituted

a case involving land located at Nianjema, Bagamoyo, specifically Plot

Numbers 818 and 819. She explained that she was the first Defendant in the

matter and believed the Plaintiff’s claims were baseless. She testified

that she bought the plots in 2010 from the 6th Defendant, Peter Peter Junior,

and had confirmed to her satisfaction that the land belonged to him. At that

time, there had been no conflict.

DW1 added that since the land had not been surveyed, she did not

go to any government office dealing with land. Instead, she went to the

local Kitongoji (Hamlet) leadership, where she was assured that the land

indeed belonged to the seller.

After purchasing the land, DW1 narrated, she assigned someone to

clear it and then placed beacons to demarcate it. The person who cleared

18
the land, a local named Mzee Shida, was permitted to temporarily

cultivate cassava there. Additionally, she entrusted her niece, Theodora

Temba, who worked in Bagamoyo, with overseeing the land and

updating her with any developments since DW1 resided in Dar es Salaam.

She testified that the land measured 3191 square meters and

disagreed with the Plaintiff’s claim that the land was approximately

3600 square meters. According to her, if both parties referred to the same

land, the Plaintiff's measurement was incorrect.

PW1 denied knowing the neighbours cited by the Plaintiff that is

Msichoke Pembe and Juma Mohamed and asserted that her known

neighbours were De-Karya and Peter Peter Junior (the 6th Defendant) to the

north and south, respectively, while roads bordered the land to the east and

west. She also mentioned other neighbours she knew in the area: Emanuel

Pambi, John Kilawe, Peter Shija, and someone called Ulimwengu.

She denied defrauding the 2nd Defendant to obtain any documents.

According to her, there had been a vigorous campaign to survey land

in both Dar es Salaam and Bagamoyo. Her niece informed her that a

similar campaign was ongoing in Bagamoyo, and later she received a letter

19
from the District Executive Director (DED) of Bagamoyo to the Commissioner

for Lands detailing the history of one of the plots.

DW1 further denied that the 6th Defendant had been convicted of

forgery regarding the disputed land. She claimed to have read a judgment

related to a different area, Nianjema B, not A, and said that it concerned

Kimara Ngombe. She further testified that she had proof the land had been

registered in her name, including letters acknowledging payment for

processing title deeds. She identified Certificate of Title No. 179209 for

Plot No. 818 and Certificate of Title No. 179213 for Plot No. 819,

stating that the documents bore her name, photo, signature, and that of a

Land Officer signing on behalf of the DED.

She admitted she did not have the originals, suggesting they might be

with Theodora, but prayed for the photocopies to be admitted into evidence.

Despite an initial objection by Plaintiff's counsel, the court ruled in her favour,

and the following were admitted: Exhibit D1: Letter from the Ministry of

Lands, Housing and Human Settlement to Skolastika Mukajanga

acknowledging payment for Plot No. 818 (1659 SQM), dated 1 June 2018.

Exhibit D2: Similar letter for Plot No. 819 (1532 SQM). DW1 then read the

exhibits aloud as required by law.

20
 Continuing, she stated she could identify the land titles, which carried

Plot Numbers 818 and 819 and were for a term of 99 years. The documents

included sketch maps of the locations. The court admitted: Exhibit D3:

Certificate of Title No. 179213, L.O. No. 91937, Ref. No. BAG/LD/33005 for

Plot No. 818. Exhibit D4: Certificate of Title No. 179209, L.O. No. 919396,

Ref. No. BAG/LD/33006 for Plot No. 819.

DW1 further stated that she had a letter previously mentioned, which

had been brought to her by her niece Theodora. Theodora had received it

from Bagamoyo District officials, and the letter detailed the process of

surveying the land. She confirmed that she could recognize it by her name

and the official district logo and signature. The court admitted the letter as:

Exhibit D5: Letter from the Office of the Director, Bagamoyo District Council

(Land Division), addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Lands, Dar es

Salaam Zone, regarding Plot No. 819, Block C, Nianjema.

She testified that she had read the judgment concerning the 6th

Defendant, and confirmed the name of the Magistrate, Makube H.A., and

the case number: CC No. 365 of 2015, Republic v. Peter Peter Junior

and 3 Others. The Plaintiff's documents in that regard had already been

admitted as Exhibits P2 and P3.

21
 She concluded her examination-in-chief by stating that the Plaintiff's

claims lacked merit. Since 2010 until 15 November 2023, she had

experienced no dispute over the land. It was only on that later date that she

received a letter from the court. Even the process server had appeared

surprised. She noted that she had fenced and cleared the land without any

complaint. Upon learning that the case involved Peter Peter Junior, she

realised the issue had finally emerged ("Kumekucha"). She believed the

Plaintiff should have acted earlier if the land had been purchased in 2008.

She requested that the court visit the locus in quo and ultimately dismiss

the suit with costs.

During cross-examination, DW1 reiterated that she had received news

about the land from her niece, Theodora, who lived near the 6th Defendant

and had seen the area. She confirmed that she had met the 6th Defendant

only once prior to the transaction and had told him she needed time to see

the area and observe local reactions before proceeding.

She explained that in 2010, the area was bushy, with only the

incomplete house of the 6th Defendant near the road. She had gone

there with her driver and, at the time, worked as Chief Marketing Officer at

22
the Tanzania Airports Authority. Locating Peter Peter Junior’s house had

been easy.

She reiterated that the area was sparsely populated and essentially

part of the larger land owned by the 6th Defendant. She said everyone told

her the land belonged to him. Although she mentioned landmarks like De-

Karya School and the 6th Defendant’s building as current markers, she

clarified that those structures were not there at the time of purchase. She

acknowledged that she went to the Kitongoji leadership for verification,

though she didn’t take the leader to the site. The leader had confirmed that

the land belonged to Peter Peter Junior.

DW1 referred to her written statement of defence (WSD), particularly

paragraph 3, which stated that she vehemently objected to the contents of

paragraph 9 of the Plaintiff’s claims. She admitted she did not know what

“valid right to pass” meant and that the 6th Defendant never showed her

any documents proving his legal ownership. Their agreement had been made

in writing, and though she had no physical proof in court, she claimed that

documentation was taken to the district level. Payment for the land had been

made in cash and in instalments, and she said she met the 6th Defendant

only once before making any payment.

23
 DW1 estimated the land size as 3200 SQM, based on step

measurements. She did not ask how the 6th Defendant had obtained the

land but accepted the boundaries he showed her and installed beacons

accordingly. She visited the site up to three times a year. Theodora and Mzee

Shida were regularly present during that time. She acknowledged that some

land may have no trees and repeated that she bought land in Nianjema A,

not Nianjema B.

In further cross-examination by Ms. Kapange, DW1 testified that she

waited about three weeks before finalising the transaction. She confirmed

that the land had been grassland at the time and, after clearing it, she

installed beacons and fenced it. There was no cassava by the time the survey

took place, and the land remained grassy. Mr. Nanyaro stated that he had

no questions in re-examination.

DW2 was Peter Peter Junior, Resident of Nianjema A, Bagamoyo,

Entrepreneur. During examination-in-Chief by Mr. Nanyaro, DW2

stated that he was in court to testify in the case between himself and Judith

Ngonella, the Plaintiff. He identified himself as the 6th Defendant. He said

he knew the Plaintiff only in connection with the case and that a dispute had

arisen after his release from prison, where he had been jailed for forgery.
24
He explained that the criminal case began in 2015 and led to his

imprisonment in 2017.

He clarified that the allegations against him were for forging

documents to acquire land fraudulently. While the land in question was

alleged to be in Nianjema A, some witnesses had testified that it was actually

located in Kimara Ngombe. He admitted that he had no documentary

evidence with him in court to prove that he had been jailed. He denied

lacking legal authority to sell the suit land to the 1st Defendant. According

to him, he had purchased the land in 2007 from one Kasim Mbwana.

He had built his own house on part of it and sold the remaining land to

several people, including the 1st Defendant.

DW2 stated further that he was arrested in 2015 by police following

a complaint from Tesha Vulustan, a land officer for Bagamoyo District who

was now retired. Tesha had accused him of using forged documents to

acquire the suit land. The criminal case proceeded until 2017, resulting in

his imprisonment. Although he tried to appeal, he failed due to procedural

technicalities. However, he was eventually released in 2018 under

presidential clemency after serving one and a half years. He added

that he had copies of his appeal application and the District Court judgment
25
that had sentenced him, as well as the High Court decision that found his

notice of appeal defective.

He maintained that the accusations against him concerned land located

in Nianjema A. However, on page 3 of Exhibit P2, it was stated that a

prosecution witness (PW2 Godfrey Augustino Mpinge) resided at Nianjema

B. Further, page 4 of the same exhibit stated that the area was in Nianjema

B and was formerly known as Kimara Ngombe.

DW2 asserted that the suit land in the current matter was located in

Nianjema A. He said he had sold the land measuring 3200 square meters

before it was surveyed, and that after surveying it measured 3191 square

meters. He explained that the difference of 9 square meters arose because

initially there had been no formal road, but after surveying, a road was

included.

He said he had known Tesha for a long time. After his release from

prison, he learned that many people had complained that Tesha had

disturbed them in his absence. DW2 had called Tesha to discuss the matter,

and Tesha had insisted that since DW2 had been jailed, the land no longer

belonged to him.DW2 claimed that he had attempted to negotiate with Tesha

26
by offering compensation so that Tesha would stop interfering with the

people to whom DW2 had sold land. However, he said Tesha later became

unavailable.

He maintained that he did not acquire the land through deceit, having

bought it from Mr. Kasim Mbwana. He said he paid TZS 2,000,000 or

thereabouts and built Mr. Mbwana a small structure (kibanda) not on the

disputed land. Thereafter, Mr. Mbwana sold him ten acres of land, which

included the suit land. He concluded by asking the court to dismiss the

Plaintiff’s claims, which he said were baseless, and declared that the

land rightfully belonged to the 1st Defendant.

During cross-examination, DW2 reaffirmed that he had bought the

land from Mr. Mbwana in Nianjema A in 2007. He admitted he had no

documentary proof with him in court, stating that the documents were

confiscated by the police on suspicion of forgery. He said that he currently

had only one ongoing land case in Bagamoyo involving someone named

Happy Benjamin, a former client of Tesha. He denied being a trespasser,

attributing the legal issues to the unfortunate fact of his

imprisonment. He asserted that had he managed to appeal, he would have

won.
27
 He stated that Mr. Mbwana had a large piece of land exceeding ten

acres. The ten acres sold to him included various crops, notably cashew trees.

He clarified that the land he sold to the 1st Defendant was part of the ten

acres and located in Nianjema A. He shared a border with the 1st Defendant

to the north, across a road. The land he sold her had “masiki ya minazi,”

meaning remnants of old palm trees that had been cut down long

ago. There were no cassava plants at the time. He said he had shown her

the boundaries and that he had been her only neighbor at that time, as the

land was part of his own.

DW2 said that Theodora had brought the 1st Defendant to him, and

that he met them twice in 2010—once to agree on the land and the second

time to complete the transaction. He said payment had been made in writing,

though he no longer had the written agreement. He explained that the

agreement had been endorsed by local Mtaa leadership, and Theodora had

been tasked with obtaining the stamps.

DW2 reiterated that all his documents were confiscated by the police.

He said that there had been three copies of the agreement; one for himself,

one for Theodora, and one for the Mtaa leaders. He believed the Plaintiff

might be able to produce the document. He emphasized that it was

28
undisputed that he had been jailed and that police had taken his documents.

He stated that he had built a house for Mr. Mbwana at Saigoni, in Kisutu

Ward, Bagamoyo Township.

DW2 stated further that Mr. Mbwana's land might have extended

across Nianjema A, B, and Kimara Ngombe, as the names were simply

administrative designations made by the Council. He said he had measured

the land using foot steps—80 by 80 steps on each side—and that he knew

the land well because it was his. He reiterated that the area contained

remnants of palm trees and was mostly grassland. He said he had sought

Tesha out because Tesha had tried to seize his house and had begun

disturbing his clients.

Regarding the suit land sold to the 1st Defendant, DW2 stated that at

the time of sale, there had been no road. Currently, a multi-storey building

(ghorofa) existed to the west, which he had constructed in 2011 after selling

the land. To the south and north were roads, while to the east was Steven

Haule. He also mentioned that De-Karia School was located to the east.

He said he had seen Theodora several times, both when she first came

to inquire about the land and again during the payment, which had been

29
made in two installments of TZS 8 million each. The money had been brought

to his home. He said he saw her about three times but admitted he might

not remember everything due to the time that had passed.

In response to Ms. Kapange, DW2 confirmed that he lived in Nianjema

and had built a multi-story building there, which remained incomplete and

uninhabited ("ni gofu"). He said he had been sentenced to five years’

imprisonment and denied having any personal relationship with Tesha.

He stated that Tesha claimed to have purchased 29 acres of land from an

Arab named Amini Hussein. However, DW2 said no legal case had been filed

against him by Tesha. He added that he did not know whether Tesha actually

owned any land in the area, though Tesha claimed ownership of the entire

area. Mr. Nanyaro stated that he had no questions in re-examination and

believed the witness had been sufficiently articulate.

DW3 was Erick Asenga, Resident of Sinza Mori, Senior Land

Officer/ Assistant Land Commissioner for Dar es Salaam. During

examination-in-chief conducted by Ms. Kapange, DW3 stated that he had

been employed as a Land Officer since October 2014. He explained that his

duties included preparing land titles, issuing residential licenses, resolving

30
land disputes, collecting revenue related to land, and performing other

responsibilities as directed by his superiors.

He testified that the records he possessed concerning Plot Numbers

818 and 819, Block C at Nianjema in Bagamoyo Rural, related to a

project initiated by the Bagamoyo District Council in collaboration with

residents of Nianjema. The Council had identified the area through a town

planning process and subsequently surveyed it, resulting in the development

of several plots, including Plot 818 and 819.

According to DW3, those two plots had been applied for by one

Scholastica Adelhardius Mukajanga in 2017, whose application was accepted

upon payment. Title deeds had then been prepared and issued to her. At

this point, Ms. Kapange prayed for exhibits D3 and D4, which were duly

admitted by the Court.

DW3 confirmed that the admitted documents were copies of the title

deeds: one for Plot No. 818, Block C at Nianjema in Bagamoyo Urban Area

with CT No. 179213, and the other for Plot No. 819, Block C in the same

area, bearing CT No. 179209, both registered in the name of Scholastica

Adelhardus Mukajanga. He added that, before the issuance of the certificates

31
of title, the Mtaa (local) authorities had introduced Ms. Mukajanga to the

Land Office and recognized her as a resident of the area. In his view, all

necessary procedures were followed, and the certificates were issued in

compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

During cross-examination by Ms. Mosha, DW3 clarified that although

he was a Land Officer, the responsibility for surveying land prior to title

issuance fell under the Surveyor's office. He stated that any applicant for

land survey needed to possess documents proving ownership, such as

contracts. He reiterated that surveying formed part of the title issuance

process and that he had not seen any alternative documentation of

ownership during the survey phase.

DW3 confirmed that the Mtaa authorities introduced Ms. Mukajanga

to his office via a letter, which formed part of the official file, though he had

never produced that letter in court. He stated that describing Ms.

Mukajanga as a trespasser would contradict the records in his

possession.

In cross-examination by Mr. Nanyaro, DW3 agreed that the process

from land survey to issuance of certificates of title was procedural and

32
required thorough verification of documentation. He emphasized that no

certificate would be issued in the event of a discrepancy until the anomaly

was resolved. Therefore, his office had been satisfied with the

documentation before issuing the certificates of title. He stated that although

his role included dispute resolution, he had never received any

complaints concerning Plot Numbers 818 and 819. As a land tenure

expert, he expressed the firm opinion that the holder of the title deed is

deemed the lawful owner of the land in question. No questions were posed

during re-examination.

I have dispassionately considered the arguments by both sides. I have

also examined the records. I find it necessary to proceed with this analysis

guided by the following issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff has established lawful ownership of Plot Nos. 818

and 819 Block “C” at Nianjema.

2. Whether the 1st Defendant lawfully acquired ownership of the suit land.

3. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had any legal fault or contributed

to any unlawful acquisition of the land.

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

33
 On the first issues, the Plaintiff called two more witnesses to support her

claim: herself (PW1) PW3 and one PW2, a local resident who had once

cultivated on the land. Her story, as gleaned from both pleadings and oral

testimony, is that she visited the area in 2008 with one Bashiru, following an

invitation by a man called Tesha Voluntian, who had subdivided land in

Nianjema. PW2 testified that he showed the Plaintiff the plot, which she

expressed interest in, before allegedly proceeding to finalize purchase

arrangements with Tesha. I found the purported sale agreement particularly

inadequate and disturbing with confusing annotations. The plaintiff could not

explain why the name bellow her “purported signature” is that of someone

else not related to this case. Since contract of sale is one of the most

important documents to prove land transfer and/or ownership, I can say this

is one of the weakest cases I have come across recently.

PW2’s testimony further revealed that he merely farmed the land under

an informal arrangement from a man called Amini Hussein prior to

2000 and was later allowed to continue farming by Tesha, after the latter

reportedly acquired it from Amini. The Plaintiff’s claim stood in sharp

contrast with the testimony and documents tendered by the

Defendants.
34
 On the second issue, the 1st Defendant (DW1) testified that she

purchased the disputed land in 2010 from the 6th Defendant, Peter Peter

Junior, after confirming with the local Kitongoji authorities that he was the

rightful owner. She also engaged a local elder, Mzee Shida, to clear the land

and later supervised it through her niece, Theodora Temba. According to

DW1, the land was unsurveyed at the time of purchase and measured 3191

square meters.

To substantiate her ownership, the 1st Defendant tendered Exhibits

D1 and D2, which are official acknowledgment letters from the Ministry of

Lands confirming her payments for the plots. More importantly, she also

tendered Exhibits D3 and D4, being Certificates of Title No. 179213

and No. 179209, for Plot Nos. 818 and 819 respectively, each issued in her

name and endorsed by the relevant Land Officer.

DW2, Peter Peter Junior, confirmed that he sold the land to the

1st Defendant in 2010, claiming he had bought the land from Kasim

Mbwana back in 2007. Although he acknowledged being jailed in 2017

following a conviction for land-related forgery in Kimara Ngombe (Nianjema

B), he was categorical that the disputed plots are in Nianjema A, and thus

35
not part of the land referenced in his conviction. His testimony was further

supported by Exhibit P2, a judgment that DW2 relied on to distinguish

between the areas. It is my finding that DW2’s criminal record, though

serious, did not relate to the exact suit land. Furthermore, there was no

evidence that the certificate of titles held by DW1 were a product of forgery

or that DW2’s prior conviction invalidated her ownership.

DW3, a Land Officer, also testified that Plot Nos. 818 and 819 were

part of a planned and surveyed area under the Council’s project. He

confirmed that Ms. Scholastica Adelhardius Mukajanga (DW1) had

applied for the plots, paid the requisite fees, and was issued certificates of

title after due procedure. He stood firm in cross-examination and

emphasized that the certificates were issued after verification by the local

leaders, including acknowledgment from the Mtaa. I am persuaded that the

1st Defendant lawfully acquired the suit land, and the same was duly

surveyed and titled in her name following proper administrative processes.

On the 3rd issue the Plaintiff did not bring any credible evidence

to implicate the Bagamoyo District Council (2nd Defendant) or the Attorney

General (3rd Defendant) in any wrongdoing. DW3, the Land Officer, offered

36
credible testimony regarding the legality of the process leading to the

issuance of the titles. He explained the multi-step process involving

verification by Kitongoji leaders, processing of applications, and approval

before issuing titles. It is my finding therefore that no fraud, illegality, or

procedural violation was proven on their part. This issue is therefore

answered in the negative.

On the fourth issue, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that she is

the rightful owner of the suit land, general damages, permanent injunction

against the Defendants, and costs of the suit. As established above, the

Plaintiff failed to prove ownership. She neither demonstrated actual

possession nor produced any documentary evidence. On the other

hand, the 1st Defendant produced registered titles and corroborated her

story with credible witnesses and documentary exhibits.

In law, he who alleges must prove. The principle is codified

under section 110(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 6 R.E. 2022. The

Plaintiff’s failure to do so is fatal. As held in Paulina Samson Ndawavya

v. Theresia Thomas Madaha, Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2017 (CAT-

37
unreported), a party’s failure to discharge the burden of proof disentitles

them from

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear

their own cost.

It is so ordered.

E.I. LALTAIKA
JUDGE
31.07.2025

Court: Judgment delivered in Court Chambers this 31st day of July 2025 in the presence
of Ms. Esther Mosha, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Ms. Thabita Maina, learned
Advocate holding brief for Mr. Allen Nanyaro Counsel for the 1st and 6th Defendants.

38