Arusha. The High Court Sub-Registry in Bukoba has overturned a decision of the Bukoba District Land and Housing Tribunal and allowed an appeal lodged by the Board of Trustees of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania (ELCT), North Western Diocese.
The land appeal, registered as No. 28882/2024, was filed by the Board of Trustees against Clemence Jeremiah.
The dispute stems from competing ownership claims over a parcel of land used by Tumaini Children’s Centre (ELCT), which provides care and shelter to vulnerable children under the diocese.
Mr Jeremiah claimed the land was his lawful property and that the centre was preventing him from using it.
The matter was initially referred to the Nyanga Ward Tribunal for mediation, as required by law.
However, the tribunal issued a document described as a “Certificate of Settlement,” stating that Mr Jeremiah was the rightful owner of the land and directing Tumaini Children’s Centre to remove security guards from the premises.
Following that decision, the matter was taken to the Bukoba District Land and Housing Tribunal, which dismissed the ELCT’s application because it lacked jurisdiction, citing what it said was a settlement reached at the ward level.
In the present appeal, the Board raised three main grounds, arguing that the District Land and Housing Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly assess the legality of the certificate issued by the Ward Tribunal and by failing to exercise its revisionary powers despite clear violations of the law.
The appellant and respondent were represented by Advocates Lameck Erasto and Pilly Hussein, respectively, and both submitted written arguments.
The ruling was delivered on January 26, 2026, by Judge Gabriel Malata and published on the Judiciary’s website.
After reviewing the submissions and record of proceedings, Judge Malata ruled that the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal was null and void and made without lawful jurisdiction.
“There was no mediation agreement reached, recorded, and signed by the parties to the dispute. The appeal is therefore allowed on the basis that the tribunal proceeded to entertain the matter without jurisdiction, as there was no valid mediation agreement,” said the judge.
He added that under the Land Disputes Courts Act, Ward Tribunals have the mandate only to mediate disputes and not to issue binding determinations on land ownership.
The court noted that the Nyanga Ward Tribunal’s certificate did not amount to a lawful mediation process because there was no signed mediation agreement between the parties, nor was there a properly recorded procedure as required by law.
It further observed that the certificate contained clear indications of a unilateral decision, including a declaration that Mr Jeremiah was the lawful owner of the land and an order directing Tumaini Children’s Centre to remove its guards.
“The court orders that the dispute be referred back to the Nyanga Ward Tribunal for mediation in full compliance with the law. If a mediation agreement is reached, it must clearly set out the terms of settlement and be signed by both parties,” ruled Judge Malata.
Lawyers’ arguments
Earlier, Advocate Erasto urged the High Court to nullify the decision of the District Land and Housing Tribunal, arguing that the tribunal had unlawfully assumed jurisdiction.
He submitted that the Nyanga Ward Tribunal’s certificate did not constitute a valid mediation, as the tribunal failed to conduct mediation in accordance with the law and instead issued a direct decision declaring Mr Jeremiah the owner of the land.
He maintained that Ward Tribunals are empowered only to mediate disputes and not to determine land ownership, and that no mediation agreement had been signed by both parties, rendering the so-called “Certificate of Settlement” legally invalid.
He further argued that there were procedural irregularities and that the District Land and Housing Tribunal ought to have safeguarded the right to a fair hearing by exercising its revisionary powers.
He asked the court to allow the appeal, nullify the tribunal’s decision, and order a fresh hearing of the dispute.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that the District Land and Housing Tribunal’s decision contained no legal error.
She cited Section 13(4) of the Land Disputes Courts Act, which bars a District Land and Housing Tribunal from hearing and determining a land dispute unless the Ward Tribunal has formally certified that it has failed to resolve the matter, and urged the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the earlier decision.
