na 2

IN Trb HIGI COUFT OF !IZaNL (a) CIVIL i 99 Oi 1971 (From tio decision of the Lb ict urt of BuIoba at 3uc be in Civil 84 of 1971 uridin.J Idoera }'rimary Jurb Civil Case Fo. 7 .f 197U Before J. I. I4ira oc., District 1J:Ldrata). R dIIL a..... . vorsu.s db.. obLI R'IfL• iON.didP JUJOai.dh:f, L-nIiL)Y J. In this casa tii iito is •j r a ice of as dnrth ohs. 80/= i1he roejon nt, .alexaridr ouo, thj011oflt in the Frimory Ccur of Iboora all in 0 Lit th iallant had encrachea into his f tn, shioa OrLL txio ale re4 aria no r•: a.. fr earnaes in tlie sum of, shs, 80/=, The CO11OiT1l ni the all atian, i.. e rec.rd..CV1LliCO dosci tiit tile elOpUtee .ortion of land was an open 1an a1thudh th reponllt ci .isi trot 1G woo ve1opci uria. .Vre rti rave lainao Cl,., to ach other, ihla rsj iiant claimec. t.t tie ci ute ehomea J5IO a11ouatiL to him by te local c'utiority, out he unale to pruuco an ) acewmoritri Oro)f tu SUr YDft 1IO case, Instead he callo Clemance ( 2) and Francis (hii3) who claimer tn.t thay wore aware tiat the aisputea land iialna to the rusponent uy virtu. of allocation. It ippear that tno lana inc1u.cin trio ispute ore:, no. bii the forest area contro11a by a local autnerity, an that local aacuity coul: allocate any oert of it to any ilicant an, as to a:,aiiarit ointeu out, if that woS acne tron the 1cal acrtrority iiisuoo. all official document or receipt showin 3 tha size an tho oliocation of the lard. In this case tiere was no such rocuinent. dxh, a was not an official accumont, enu therefore, it could not be r1iod on as a souna basis for such a c.rn. iLither Clernonco (p42) nor basj (i3) stated hey thy o je to Acnow that the land blcnCed to tha respondent. Ineed, their evidence is of doubtful value since they said iricit tao land inaisputo was that oart wiich wa3 anlevolopod, while the respondent clbir.eJ that it was the eevo1opa ocirt The appellants case hs been to bh effect that to dioucca oie-n laia was prt of the 1an. h ho.: houohit froi Ruben Kanyasharnbo (D.. ,2) in the )reoailoa of bindano Dish:.uKola (bN1), The3e two sup :crte. tao aiim of the apellant, a5 the trial rrhtly diad'cnisei the problem wine one of whether there was a cross-ever 1110 boundary oar, ther.forc, found it nacess ry •t visit the l.nd. Th resrondant one ills witnesses alloyed that the boundary ws markee by 'milinzi' trees, but these wore not there., iho rospnLLGnt il1loed that they ware uprootcu by the iallaiit since 1969 and yet ho -6cok no action until hven.er, 1971. don the visit to the 1ne the trial court come t. thee conclusion that flare was no proof tnt Ida ap,cllant ha.. crossed any boundary OflL. i:sniijoed th6 claim for oils 8o/, On ap.eal, an for sane unplaine iason, Il aersoci cohen 5ason, wh not :ivs eviJanc in tao boor cou t, a.poara tu lye evinanc, in ny view, this was erronnoue esihare was no oasis for Icikind extra avidaaca if it was ovidenc,. at all, when the respondent had full oortunity to lead evicanco at th Primary Court out ha dii: not do So. In acLaition to trio, Inc appellant as not 0 iven the oportunity to cant- ranict ta avionca of ..inson, It was on eamson's shuwinp tac Ol1eOd aeundary that the ao.;ellata court reversed the Ii id courts judyoment. In ny view, the course aciopte by tao apeilat court was crrn1ete1y unnece — osery and prujuchicial Io the pellats csu as there w e ample evidenco on roe ora on which the appellate court coula ..eol with tao appeal. IiiVifl0 ra rd to tao evironce roerdea rarin,h the trial, tacranes justification