19711211 TZHC Mwanza2

" -_- THIG1Hi_OUTTT 7 OH THZAITIA AT LHTKTZA Appellate Jusdiction 7KC (pa) civii APThJt NO. 108 OP 1971 (Pron the decisiàn di the district court of Kasulu in Ciiril Appeal Ho. 6 of 1971 before 11. J. Lungoinbe Esq., District Magistrate - Original Civil Case No. 31 1970 of Hanyovu prireary court). ZILAJED/OKANANI ., . . , . .P.EIitANT versus - M'JGHGE PIMLBHIA , . . . . . . . . , . . . . 4 . . •. . . . • PLLSPOPDENT J1JDGTENT IasA1TGA, Ag.J. The appellant Zilaje d/o Kanari sued the respondent for the recovery of a sh aiba worth h.lOO/-. The primary c ouri allowed the ci c.iri but on the first appeal the dis rict court found against her and she nor appeals to this Oart, The facts found by both cots below were that the suit shareba originally belonged to the appellarrt's father' s The appellant's lather died about 32 years ago, whereupon the appellant inherited the land. At the tine she bocaree so entitled, however she was still a yopng girl nci so soon after her fcther s deaththe appellant who was a subcbief re- allocated the lend to his nephew The appc1int went to live elsewhere and. subsequently aot married and eventually sued for the recovery of this lend only last year, 1970. There was evidence that the appellant was a ysun; girl rhen her :aaalcr died. This reans that she was a minor and, therefore she had no - capacity to sue for the recovery of the land of which she iTas dispossessed. I-Ioviever, when she arned theppeal personally in this Court s she appeared to he an elderly won-rn of about 40 years. Ii she was dispossessed of the land some 32 years ago, i.e. when her father died, this means that she was 8 years old when she was thus dispossessed. She needed enorner 13 years before sh-reeched the age of majority which would enable her tO sue fer the land Giving allavance for the 13 years. during which she was still a minor, it follows that she had some (32 - 13) 19 years during which she was offull capacity and she could have brought the actioh, bxt he did not do so, There is a line of authorities to show the this Caaxt will not readily interfere in onder to give remedy wheis the party seeking such raedy s-rh on his rights and did not act with reasonable promptitude. For instance, in the case of SHABJNI 1TASSOMO vrh haJABU SIIA (1967) H.C.D. 233, in which the facts were similar, SJIDI, J. as ha then was held that the court is re1ctent to disturb parsons- who have been in ocpation of the land for a long period, and having said that he refused to give remedy where the party seeking such renody delayed to bring the action for 18 yesrs In - the present case the appeJant is in no better position because she delayed to bring the action ;:or the -- .-- - last 19 years. Ain,in 'U lie case of SAID Lt2ATSIl v. RAJJBU FEKO (1970) H.C.D. 106., GeorIes .J* nel-d that wiaere a. party reurns a:e0r some 20 years and claims land edeinet a pe'son who been occupy±n end improvinrç the land then he must bring very convincin evidence if he ia to succeed. In the p'esent case s the appellant returned after 19 years which is very near, to 20 years. In answer to a question jait by the trial court, she eta- ted that she could not file the action ecaa1ie because her husband was on safari and daereore there was nobody to provide the moneyior Illing hae action, To ray mino r phis is not a very corwancing reason. The suit land is worth only h100/— and the court fees payable in reapoct of an action to claim arch lend cannot be-so high tbat the appellant ros unable to find it for a period of 19 years. I an 9 thea'efore, of the view that the appe1a11 16, set on her rights for too long, and that she has not (ven any sufficient gromniC which would warrant interference by this Court and accordingly the apae is dismissed with costs, _TTZA' (R. H Kj.sa' a5 11 .12.1971, AgDJDDG-E