NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 1

L\fbtL~__j -\-\-\ c__ nr TEE HIGTI counT OF T.ANZ.ANIA Jj t S-fTl~ AT DP..R ES Si:LAAM PC. CIVIl.i .APPTu:.1..J{Oo 46 OF 1993 · (From the decision of the District Court of Kibaha at Kibaha :in Criminal/Civil Appeal Noo" 1 of, 1993 ) B~,u{ARI LIPllsI e O O O C "' 0 0 0 C O Cl t Q ,6 -0 ,0\. 0 6 C> c, O O O O O o O O O O O O e .APPEALLAN'T VaL'SUS .ALLY MOI:L'U'GTID MBELEKO •••o4oo•oo•oooeoeoeooeooooooo RTI:SPOUDENT ' / J U"D G H E N T , In Kibaha Urban Primary Co'LU't1 the appellant, one Bakari LIPil.iI S:DffiA, sued one Ally Mohamed Mbereko now the respondent for reooveJ;y of a piece of land said to have been sold- by the :respondent to another person. The P:rirne,1.7 Court found for the a.ppellent but on appeal by the Respondent 'to the D:f etx.-iot Court the decision of tho ~ima.ry Court was reversed in favour of the Respondent~ Honce this appoal by the appellant. The judgment of tho Lower a.ppollo.to Court has b0on impU€;ued. principally on the grounds that it wn.s onrcrvous for having given credoncy to the Respondent's claim that ho bought such piece of luncl. in absenoo of any vtritten document1 to osto.blish such alleged sale agroomont and £~ d:i.soarding tho av-id.once f<E tho appollon~ in fa.our of that of tho rospond.anto At. thQ hoor:i.ng of this appeal tho appcl.lant was roprcscntod by Mro ' ' Ly:imo lo.arnod Counsol from ToLoCo, through Legal aid scheme while the legcl. rcpr:aoscnte.tivo for the Roepandont who is reported dood failed t9 appoo;r though ho wn.s aware of tho hearing d.o,to as fix:od an 20~94 to 6th Ootober 1nstan• Arguing tho ap:pool. fat' ·iho appollant Mr. Lyimo has oontOl'ldod. tlll..t tho land in d.isputo alleged to ha.Vd boon .sold to tho .Rospond.cnt lra.G situated ~"?t Kib_o.ha. in an unsur'V'OYocl. ~oo., and thc.t tho alleged sole he.a. not boon supportod by any -w:ritton ngreomant, e,s :t'cq~_irod by tho law for the disposition of lo.nd.. ,. 2 It ho.s then been submi ttod tho.t undor S0 3 of Land Ordo Co.p. 113, all tlie land in Tonzonic., whether occupied or not is dcclorod to be ~lie Lana., and its disposition must get tho Counsolit of tho President or o.uthorized Officer, as provided for undor tho snmo Ordil1ro1co0 Mr 0 Lyimo has -further argued that u.ndor s. 2 of tho said lond Ordincll1c0 lo.nd __ · : is held under oi thor doomed right .o.:~ .f)o.cu-,,e0l1cy which is covered undar S. 12 of tho sruno Ordo or p;ra.:ntod rj:[{}2,.~ of Occupancy which is provided undor ,. So 6 of tho so.id O-.cdina11coo It ho.s further boon submittod by tho loorned Counsel for tho a,ppollont that as tho land .in dispute_ was unsurvoyod, it was thoroby hold under a, ~ r 1-.JZ..~\t. of, Occupancy0 Citing tho p~ovisions of land Regulations 1948, GoNo 232, as runcnded by GNo 101 of 1960, tho Lon:rnod Counsel for the o.ppollont has submitted that in torms of Rulo 30 (1) of su.&1 Rogulations1 a disposition of a r ~ o;f o?ouponcy slioll not be operative UlllOS§ it is- in vn:-iti..~ 9P:d__!.ml.Gss and until it ho.s boon approved by ~o _n-csidonto but fa. toms of SUb. ( 2) of Rulc:i 3 of tho said land Regulations, tho word"disposi tion 11 l+as boon defined to moang 11 (0.) a 001woy®ce or assisimont other than .by wn,y of mori;gngo ox gift sotlcmont, deed of portition, ~sazrt, vesting dooloro.tion or a sole in o:x;ooution of cJll order of o. Court." In tho light of such provision it hn.s boon contended by Mr• Ly:i.mo that tho purported disposition of tl10 lo.nd in this o.pporu. doos not foll within any of tho e::wcptions so tl'ta.t it ho.d. to comp]J' to tho roquiramonts that it must l:>c in -writing cllld with the approvol of tho Prosidc."'lt or a.n;y: other o.uthorizcd Official which rog_uu-omonts it fa.ilod to sn.tis:f"✓ u.rdar such circumstances tho ~ov.rnod CounsGl has subraittod that the disposition should bo doclnrod. null and void; and the decision of tho Primory Court bo restored. On tho second grant of oomploint tho Loarncd Counscl for the appellant has argued that tho Lon:rnod Dis~iot Nogistrc.to hnd. er:l:'OO. :in Law Q?ld fact in holding that tho ovidcnco o.dduoed in the Primary Court wa.s, undor tho bolonoo of p::-obribilitios not sufficient to hn.vo tho co.so dcoidcd in favour of tho n.ppolla.nt ns hold in tho P.r:iJnnry Court. It is his contention that tho Plo.intj.ff 1 s wi tnossco No. 1 vhioh ,, in th@ P.rim.:lry Ocn.n-t- disprating tho axistonoo of Sllch cl.logod. dispo&i ti.on 1ms ouch strongar tb.o.n that for tho Dofandnnt which 1-ms only to tho off'oo1. tho.t tho disputod. plot had bo<11 sold to tho Respondent, & 3 While the cw.so for- tho c,ppello.nt before the Lower Trial Court wn.s tho.t the piece of lal'l-.'l in dispute. 'bolonGed to the docel'.,sod who wn.s tho older brother of tho.a.ppollont ond that none of tho close relatives 'of tho docco.sod hnd boon mndo mm.re of tho salo of au.ch piece of land o.s allcgod by tho Respondent, for tho ilospondent, 1-tlrilo not disputing such oontondod original omiarship of tho disputed 1o.na.· by the docon.sod., ono B.AlCARI Lil ILI, oldcr · brother of tho a,ppoll0l1t it wns olcimod thn.t such :pioco of lal'ld 1-ro.s lo.tar sold to tho wife of tho Respondent :far Tshs.5,000/=, but there is no ovidonoo tho.t such snlo wa.s there nnd thon roduocd. into l-Zt'iting and a.ttestod by nny othcr parson in tho village o.na. ond()j;'sod by nny other parson in cuthori ty such as tho village Council, which is-normo.lly tho pro.ctico in tho case of disposition o_f lancl in rural areas. In my ju~ont, such allogod soJ.o of tho disputed lo.nd is in tho oircumsta.ncos of tl1is cc.so very suspocto It could not ha.vo boon so private, not oven to tho knowlod&o of nny of; tho villager loo.dcrs. Lot it bo pointed o.t this juncture that upon disputi::.J.G suoh alleged dispoai tion of la.nd by the docoas~, it befell ·upo,n t~1c ros-pondont to prove 01; tho ·bo.lanoo of probol:>ili ties tho.ii he was in fa.ct in lo:wful possession of suoh lnnd after omcrship had boon ~n.,.'1sf0rcd to hir.1 lJy tho docoo.sod BAK.All.I LIPJLI, through a lawful sale o.grooocnto Yet as it has turned out tho P..os-pond.ont failed to osto.blish before ,,. tho trial com-t that thoro wn.s, in fa.ct, such.lo.wful so.lo, for failure to produce any- l'Ol.iablo documonta.1:y ovidonoo and ll.PprQJmiato vi.J.u:igo outhori ty 'Which ought to ha.vo ondorscd. such sclo. Thus in n.bsonoc of such ovidonoa, tho o.llogod sale must as r:ightly oo:ntonded by tho Loarnod Counsol. f~ tho o;ppcJJ.ont, be doolorod. nu.1.i nnd. void, I tll1d. thcre:t:oro of no offooto Accm•d.ingly, I allow this o..ppooJ., sot aside tho jud@'aont of Lowm- appollatc court nnd rostoro tho jud@"no.-rit of tho P.t-:i.D.QI'y Court, with oosts~ It is so orclorod• . Dolivurod. this lS'i do,y of Novor,1bal:, 1994, in tho pI'OSO-UOO of :&rl.ija .Ally ( Oll bohnlf .of o.ppollnntl Cl'ld Mr. ~ i Ally Mboroko~