19801110 TZHC Mwanza1
The evidence established that the felled tree was on the appellant's land at the time of felling, and the respondent's claim of allocation was unsubstantiated. The appellant is entitled to compensation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19801110 TZHC Mwanza1
- Parties
- Appellant: Abdallah Tip Said; Respondent: Athanazi Maiza
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 1980
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Compensation for Damage to Property, Ownership of Land, Trespass
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdallah Tip Said
Appellant
Athanazi Maiza
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully felled a tree on the appellant's land
- 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation for the felled tree
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence established that the felled tree was on the appellant's land at the time of felling, and the respondent's claim of allocation was unsubstantiated. The appellant is entitled to compensation.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Respondent to pay appellant shs 600 as compensation
- Respondent to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGh COURT OP TANZAITIA (IN THE DISTRICT KGISTRY) AT IrVZA (po) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 97 OP 1979 (Prom the decision of the district court oVBukoba district at Bukooa inCivil Appeal No. 200 of 1978 Bè±' ore A4 N. Russe -ta, Esq' District Mogis -brate and Mubuzida Primary. Court Original Civil Case No 4 of 1977 ABD.ALL.AHTIP SAID • • . . . . . ..., . , . . . . . . . .•. . . . . ,APPELLAIJT VERSUS: ATHANAZI I'-AIZA ... . , . ... . . . . . , . . . . . • . . . . .BESPOIDE1.T JUDGEJNT RtJBAMA, J: 4 The appellant claimed that a tree known as "ornurundu" which was g±owii- g on his lan,d was felled by the respondent without his pernission.. He claimed shs 600/ compensation from the respondent The respondent had stated that the tree that the appellant was claiming as his had in faôt been growing on the land that had 23 been allocated to him in 1975'0 He accepted that this land may have been appellant's at one time, but the land was later allocated to him for cultivation - accordingly he disputed the appellant's claim' The trial court analysed the evidence very carefully and fullyand found that the claim by the respondent Was not based on facts It found that the felled tree had been growing on the land of the appellant at the time it was felled by the respondent and further the court doubted the claim by the respondent that the land on which the tree in question had been growing had at any time been allocated to lini by a competent authoi'ity The trial court found for the appellantOn appeal, the first appellate court in a very durious dgment did not decide on the issues at hand It got itself into dealing with some other irrelevance that can safely be left untouched in this appeal On the reading of the evidence, the findings of fact by the trial c.ourt are reasonable and fully supported by the evidence on record I accordingly find merit in the appeal I allow it with coss The respondent is to pay the appellant the claimed stun of shs, 600/—,as compensation for having felled his -tree without his permissionc HIGH COURT MWJ\NZA (sa-D) Y.AHYA RUBAMA 10TH NOVEMBER. 1980 JUDGE I herbr,,çrtify that this is the true copy of the original WA 1 ' a• ::.:.: . . . . . . . Soo 006'e a S... ITRICT REGISTRAR. I . / J! N. A