The dispute started before the Maghojoa Ward Tribunal where the Respondent sued the Appellant claiming for the recovery of a piece of land encroached upon and occupied by the Appellant. He preferred his appeal before the District Land and Housing Tribunal. In the conduct of that appeal, the first appellate tribunal completely ignored the evidence and decision of the trial Ward Tribunal and instead heard the parties’ submissions; visited the locus in quo and called and interviewed about eleven (11) so called Tribunal witnesses (TWs) without giving the parties a chance to cross-examine them. At the end, the first appellate tribunal overruled the decision of the trial Ward Tribunal and decided in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the first appellate tribunal. He has filed this appeal intending to impugn that second decision.