Mnzavas J.K.: On 11/10/85 the appellant/applicant complained before the Regional Housing Tribunal alleging that the respondent had let his house (in which the appellant was one of the tenants) to members of the Tanzania F Peoples Defence Forces who, according to his testimony before the tribunal were threatening to evict him and his family from the house. He asked the tribunal to intervene and save him from being evicted from the premises.
G Before the tribunal the respondent admitted having let the said premises to, (according to him) officers of J.K.T. But he said that he did so after he had given notice to the tenants and asked them to quit the premises within an agreed date; and that all the other tenants, except the appellant, had already complied with the notice and have vacated their rooms. H He however further told the tribunal that he was ready to find another room for the appellant in an adjacent building over and above allowing him retaining one of his two rooms in the house. He asked the tribunal to grant him time to sort out the matter with the appellant. Thereupon the tribunal said: I
A ORDER: Prayer granted, matter be settled by the parties themselves first.
Apparently the parties failed to reach a settlement and they had to appear again before the tribunal on 1/11/85. After hearing both parties the tribunal made the following order: "Tenant to surrender the two rooms before 25/11/85 and shall B accept the other one kept by L.L. The landlod to assist him look for alternative room before that date". There was yet another order (type written) dated 5/12/85 which order was more or less similar to the previous order dated 1/11/85. C Dissatisfied by the tribunal's orders the appellant has come to this Court.
Legally an aggrieved party in dispute between landlord and tenant before a Regional Housing Tribunal appeals first to the Housing Appeal Tribunal before coming to the High Court. However it would appear that the Appeals Tribunal has not D yet been formed and it seems that is why the appellant has directly come to this Court. Be it as it may my reading of the proceedings in the Regional Housing Tribunal shows that the mandatory provisions of section 11 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984 were not complied with. The section says inter alia: E
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be exercised by the Chairman sitting with two other members of the Tribunal - Section 11(2).
F Nowhere in the handwritten proceedings is it shown that the learned Chairman, Mr. Mtenya, sat with members of the Tribunal and the orders arrived at were clearly a nullity.
The proceedings and the order of the Tribunal are therefore hereby set aside. The status quo before the matter came G before the Tribunal is restored. The Regional Housing Tribunal is to hear the dispute de novo and comply with the mandatory provision of section 11 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984.
Costs to follow the event.
Order accordingl H y.
A