19950309 TZHC Dar es Salaam

I IlT TIIEl HIGlI COURT OF Tlu~ITA AT D6.R E3 SJJ.JJJ,I. PC CIVIL A'PPE."..L NO. 1:,..5/94.- .r•.:J. 1:!'UJ1.~.lL'fil'I MN1'1JP.ill ••• 0 1 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 ..... APP.!llLLhlrI 1 VERSUS :MSIIID .Y.JJJ~fGiJl. . o~oooeoooooooooo•eRESPQND]Th'!T ------------- .roprnmmIT, -;qtTJESIII, J! ; Tho appellant Athuraani Mnyul,X)- liw sido by sido with tho respondent Ra.shid Kamba.nswa . ilt Gom1bola mboto Ukonga. wi t:1in Dar os Sala.am Rot.1.ori.' Somotimo in 1993 tho appollant had a disputo over botmdarios-with ono Saidi'Mbondo and when they could no-:t o.groo_with Saidi Mbondo, tho latter callod tho rospondont who originally owned tho prooo of land that was now being olaimod by tlio two parties. When those two· could not ae;i;-co ever tho oxa9t botmd.ary tho respondent told tho appellant that if' thoy oa.nnot n~oo then ho was. willine to roclaitl. his aroa about 2i paoos 70 this the appellant was not in ag:i..ccnont as ho claimed that ho had offered Shs.· 300 for the same. Tb.o rospondont rofulod tho claim that ho had boon paid Sha. 300/= 1n·considoration thoroo£, but that tho.Sha. 300/= was offorod as fco to those people who· ha~ lowllod tho area., AJ1.d ad.d_od tha.t ho was willing to ropey- i;ho appellant his Shs. 300/=-• Tho appellant was not ready to accept this .amount back. this is tho back ground to this appeal. Whon tl'lo trial court visi tod the aroa. in dispute it discovered and I quotos. " Iv!ab.cilcama ilipohamia onoo linalogombmra. ilikuta mdai ar:iojoni.:,"'8. nyumba· · karibu na panapodaiwa, palikuwa na. shino nusu ya, cnao la ..IJCl.ai at1balo ni hatv..a. l9i hc1.ta odai rawonyowc analro.bali onoo lcii..yo mgogoro ni ha.tua 2½ tole.a kwonyo mba.azi hadi ogon'ba araba:po md.ai anadai alipowa a.u kuuziwa_na adaiwa hivyo hizo hatua 2½- zinazobishani'wa ziLlo ndani ya. hizo hatua 19! "• Tho trial court found tlw,t tho aroa i~ dispute belonged to the eppollant A_ thunani ~Inyupo. Tho rosponciont appealed and tho District CoID~t aJ.lo~od tho ar>r>oale Sinco· t;10 District Court judsoont' is rathe1• short e.nd shall\ reproduce it for oaso of rcf'oronco. .., .. 2/ .. \\ Tho dis:puto in ~hi!:' caflc centres on a piooo of lane., ±t was led in ,~-ri :·..---~~r.} :)0foro the t:;;~.al ·}ourt tha~ t1l.o ap,;::>o2.1ar,~ ,'3oJ.c: a piece of land to ·i;)lo 1·ot:¾ponclont at Shs. 300/== which was hotly dispu.tod by tho appellant. Ho saic1 tha.t ho gave that riiocc of l&"'ld free of chr'll'[,'C to the ·ros:pondcnt. The :• 21.;,.,ullant did. not dispute to have rocoivod Shs. 300/= from tho ros,ondont but said that tho·rcspondont ~aiat th.at a.ooi.mt as a f oc to tho a:;,1i1ollant I s wivos who had talccn part to fill up a pig hole wbioh had clcvolopod in tho area. From wha. t I ga thor fron tho ovid.onco, tho a1)r.,Cllant does not dis].JUte to ho.vo allocated pa:rt of his territory -to the Ilathor, what in:fusod hin was tho ros:pondont. . . tho rospondont 1 s a.ct of claining moro than ho was given which ·wouJ.d . . bring to nind tho provorbial canal story which upon l)oind invi tcd to havoshol tor fz-or.1 the hostico cold winl woa.thor e,JOntually ldcltcd out its ti.aster fron tho tent. !lJb,is is what tho a:ppollant (then clofondr..-mt) testified if only I nay quote in p~.rtj " Md.a.i aliondoloa kul;,ishe nd.ipo nilipotoa She. 300/= nikc."lJJrUdishia. na. lcusona kuwa onoo lanGU lilo lingino naohukua nililolaroshanpa sikuchukua.•••••" It is this clear fron this piece of ovic.onco that tho a:p]?Olle.nt adni ttod to hnvo offo1•od part of his torri tory. · As tho trial court· rightly a:)sar'rod in his judgment tho wholo affair was oxclusivoly botwoon tho two parties but tho trial court worclorcd as to wby the appellant ma.do ~..n a1Jout turn and cla.inod baclc a pioco of lancl only about ~ paoos leaving out ·19i pacos•. It has -to bo noted that since tho trial court a.p:prociatod that this was an affair botwoon two parties I think it would bo unfair not to 1)0licvo tho appellant ·who just chose to tp.vo out that l)ioco of lancl without consideration fron tho rospontlont - shooo upon him. Ho is such an ungrca~ful follow. On that saro I ca1mot ·any reason to ag:roo with tho roasonil1G of trial Magistrate..· I will th;us hold th.at tho disputed piccd of land belongs to tho ap;.:x)llant••••••" !Defore no tho appellant ropoa.tod what ho. said in tho .1-ifcr coui--t that ho bought .tho area b;y:__ pnyine Sh.se 300 in 1976 although thoro was no wri tton oviclonco. Accord.inc to tho appellant ho l.1ougl.lt tho whole area i.o. 19i paces not only 2½- :paces. Ho also a.ddocl that ho is related to tho ,res:ponclont who was in\"i tad. to sort. out 1;ho boundary botwoon hin the appellant and Saidi Mbondo. -3- Tho respondent on l~ia ])<."-'.rt said. the ap110llant was tho fust to havo · <"· ::;:ii.ace• ;{' s~1anba and thon b.o ( respondc-m·!;} securecl ._,n area Gi1.jo:hti.nc tho appollani;Z d oid.c: bu:t his area included a pig depression (shine) l1}.1icll. ho has partially covoroa..- Tho apr,cllant requested the rosponctont to givo him part of. tho area.so that h ...,,_uJ.d bult a house. According to tho :rosl)ondent he did not· object but claiocd froo tho a;,pollant sono nonoy to J?&.;y- tho :people who had lovollod part oftho depression (shine). Tho respondent however is not :prepared to sur1·endor tho whole area unc:tor d.isputo tho 1%- :pa.cos to ·which tho appellant is clair:ling· as l)olonging to hin fron 1976e · After hoarine both si~os and going tb;t'ou.g"b. .t110 oYid.onco as :recorded by tho lo~ror · coU:t"t I find as -a fact there was no oviclenco that the pioco· of land was sold 1Jy tho :r.osponc:.ent to tho am1ollant f0r Shs~ 300/=. l-Iattcrs of sale rosr,ocially of_ land aro sonsit ~ issuo. Evon in tho 1:onoto. vil_la.gcs tho ordinary wananchi havo m-r~on up to th.e fact that sono sort of. ·wri tton avid.once is roquirocl to sur>;,ort their oaso. I an thoroforo not' persuaaod that tho. appoliant 1Jotrjlt tho woa from the rosrionclont. Rather I lend to bclic'l'O--tho rosponc1ont when ho says ho acooptod tho Shs. 300/= not as price for tho pioco of slianba but as payr.iont for tho work.of lovollinc; the area., also I boliavo tho l'os1,onclont ovidonoo that ho eavo tho piooo of land about "c.Jl.S O C. ~ if:ft>oos only to facilitate tho app llant built a house thoroon but t~t ho was not givon tho wholo area and I· an fortified in th.is roasor.inet by tho rospondonts own aclnisciion that n Md.ai a.liondoloa kubisba ndipo (Mdaiwa,)" alip~toa Shs. 300/"" elcanrud.ishia na ku,qcna, cwoo la.lee -li~ lincino ariachul01a alilokwosha f.11)8: haohulrui Tho way I undorstancl this piece· of ovidonco is that the responclon.t Rashid · Kamban@fa offered 001:10 l)icco of' land to tho appcllant but duo to sor.1e disac;reonon~ botwoon thon tho respondent .ras willing to allow tho aP1X3llant to rota.i..'1. tho piooc of .land already s. •.,n to hin but would recover tho other vioco that tho rcsr,ond.cnt had also offered to the appellant. Goinc by the oviclence _the responclont informed the• court that when tho appo1lt>,nt wanted to buelt another house at tho plot, ho roquestod the respondent to givo hin extra piooG of land; and to this request the respondent obliged. In uy raind this is the area that t4a,t the respondent is now olaimine back... I on satisfied lil<;o the Distric"l .Nagistratc that th::.s disputed piece of larld belongs to the i-ospcndent, and that it had not.been sold to tho avdellant, as earlier explained. . ..4/ ·~·J ··""· ;1_p;;,ctl thorcf0c0 fails with costs tfu juJeocnt of tho District -- court is uphoide JUDGiil 9/3/95 J'udgoont delivorcd in prcsonco of 1Joth Appellant and ncsi)ond.ont. ·