N

IN THE HIGH COUffi' OF TANZfll'HA ~]!H<OBA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL N0.177 OF 199lf (From the decision of the District Court of Bukoba District at Bukoba in Civil Appeal No. 61/94 and Original Urban Primary c·oul"t 8i vil Case No. 22 of 1991+. Before::.R. R.: Rukandiza, Esq~ PDM). ANTHONY TI KY.OMO • • •• , •• •. • ••••••••••••••••• •. ;i,; APPELIJ1.if.r VERSUS FBRDINAND FELIX •••• ~ •••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••• • R'8,SPONDENT · _!! U. .D G H E N T - MASANCHE, J • . j The appellant, Antony T1kyomo, sent the respondent, F1•edinand 'D'eli:x, . · to the primacy Court . or Bukoba, Bukoba, demanding a pi_ece of· land valued at Shs.2~ 1 00r,/:. He had alleged that the shamba had belonged to his father. He lost the case. The tri;tl Court wat of the view that the parties are clesely related, and the shamba they are grappling clan land, - It had not been sold outside the cl~n. upon is a ..,_..,... '- So, there was no need ot hullabal~! Ferdinand appealed to the District C~urt. The District Court here, in.a ?ela.tively l~ng judgment, ha. ■ deelared all the proceedings null and void. It has argued that as the shamba was a clan shamba, the appellant and respondent •hould ~ot have gone t6 Court~ The trial Court has !laid 1 i as I have p-,inted ~ut be fore 1n tMs case, that th~ sgamba in dispute is;! the lamily :1a mem"8rs, e.nd tha~ -ehe sale agreement is declared VO!D, which makes the respio,ndent/dejendant not to have p@tssession or the sh~mba in issue, It is my holding theretore that, this case be he!.',rd DENOVO by .mother competent Primary Court magistrate whereas the family clan members of both parties will be called to testify as to who is the right 01-mer of the ~ .. .: 2 shamba in disputel For the mean time the respondent should g~ on to own the shambn till when it is decided otherwise by a Court of la\•/?• I understand the trial Court, iii'that pas:5age, ·to be sayin.r,,; thet the appellant_Fel"dinand Felix.wasted his time in getting to Court to ask the Court to give him the piece o! lax.d whieli is a clan land ruid which has been bought by another clan mano It alse seems to suggest that the appellants recourse is to the clan Md. not to the Court. I agree with that judgment. • It is true that the land is a clan lai,d w.d that it is \vithin elan members, ass1.m1ing that the respondent bought it • . The final order, thent by the appellate Court should ha.ve been that it agrees with the primary Court. Therefore, it should have said that the appeal ie cil.•mi.ssed, s~. the order of the fijst appellate Court to order for a trial denove is 5et aside. As the fil"st appellate Court agrees that the n;atter is o. clc>...n matter, it should have said that the appeal is dismissed-. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal, F~r avoidance of doubt, the primary Court judgment is supp~rted. /Ir~:,' ~,~~ .~~ fJ· I \'J IL ~:, (id{ ti)<~ 1: .. - : l·-~/.'- ,. .I:r. \ I . ... '";:,, \ \\~:- • .· '\ • I 11 - ~, • J \\ ' /' i //. / .,···· _,, .. · J. .,.Ji'/.~. Htl.SANCHE - . -<,; j ·~·· vo<: ~-~- <, llr, /"" -=:~-..;~:;;-·"" --~.... JUl)GE At 13ukoba-. _ ' 4th t,rovemb/i'¥i\~.=:. Appellant: w.,.,.. t•-- prese':a.t i-n person. l~espondent: present in -person,. . --• .... _...~. ·•·---~---- ~ ~.