aidan tegute vs raimond vitalis 1987 tzhc 106 29 august 1987

HI T IE IUGH COUTH? OF TALTZA1JIA AT H ^ P A _ (PC) CIVIL A PP^ L ITO, 33 OF 1986 (From tlie d e c is io n o f th e D i s t r i c t 'Ccru-'t o f I-bih^p " D is t r ic t in C i v i l 'p -n e 'l ITo.62 ‘ o f 1985 O t Q o K ifjo n aera P r. Court C i v i l C^se ITo. 28/85) a i i a i t t u g rr? » . , e . o . o o o o . c />p r n r j , ■it t versu s BAIIIOITD VTIALIo o . o . , o o . ,0 R.T!POin)EllT J U DG H 13 II T Piubaraa, J . Aidan T e re te u n su cce ssfu lly ^ sued Raimond V i t ^ l i s ~t Pi^omor'-' Prim ary C ourt, c l lim in g th a t th e G rid Pinimond Vit~ l i s h 'd oncro"chod in to Ilia la n d . A i d in ’ T e r e te had m ain tain ed t h : t th e lent? encroached in t o "by Paimond V ito lie: h~d been one o f th e tvro sharab^s th~ t he h 'd bought in Hay, 1970 to g o t h er ir ith a house from one In n o cen t Por’t^ n tin o and th r.t th e s a l e hr.d boon w itn e s s e d b y th rep p e o p le . Ho produced, a s a l e document sh o ein g th a t on th e 2 5th Il^y, 1970 he Aldan T egeto , had p u rch ased .at a c o s t o f Shr.. 60Q/- a house and two sli^mb-"'::., On th e shambc. i n d in p u te s he Aldan T e r e te , t e s t i f i e d to I r v e . i n 1971 p la n te d some bamboo p la n ts w hich o x o r c is o ho re p e a te d i n 1972 . In 1982 A idan T e g e te f u r t h e r s t a t e d Raiinond V i t ^ l i s encro^chod in to his. l^nd r u p ro o te d c r s s a v a p i ant,<3 t h a t he had p la n te d -^nd brd in t h e i r pi.. 00 p la n te d beans rnd c a s s a v a p la n t s . Tho c o ^ t .o f h is u p ro o te d c ^ ’i - v n p la n ts was e stim a te d b y him to be Shc*. 80 0 /-. Ilaimond V i t a l i i t e s t i f i e d on th e o th e r hand th t he tr d -o ^ ^ ired th e lr n d in d is p u te i n 1963 end had. been u t i l i z i n g t h * t 1 nd u n in te rru p te d f o r a lon fi tim e. Ho f u r t h e r m ain tain ed th a t th e l~nd i n d is p u te h 'd boon s u b je c t o f a C i v i l Case i n 1971 betw een h im s e lf r nd one ^imon S im u n d a t Ilfcumbi D rie r r y Court and t h a t Prim ary Court hrd found, him a s th e laTJful otmer o f tho l-^nd now b e in g claim ed by ',idan T e g e te . Tlie K ig o n se ra P rim ary Court a f t e r a n a ly s in g tho e v id e n c e found f o r Raimond V i t a l i s . T h is f in d in g i r s upheld.-by tho D ir,t r i c t Court o f Ilbings s i t t i n g a t Ilb in ga. T h is th en i s a second a p r a r l b y / id~n T e g e tc a g a in s t c o n c u rre n t fin d in g s o f f^ c t b y th e two su b o rd in a te o o u r ts . Havin' gone through the record and having considered tho nrcuinr’r o f appeal I fin d th at thin ''ppo^l must succeed fo r the fo!Ho’ Ting reasons: the t r i ~ l court did not properly "ddress i t s e l f to th/-' evidence on record ^ncl had -c tc d on unimport'-nt or in s ig n ifi^ -n t fa c to r s fo r d is b e lie v in g the evidonco "by _'.iid~n Terete, 'id~n Terete has c o n s is te n tly maintained th at ho h-d "bought the l~nd in dispute together w ith other proportion from one Innocent Kor,t ''n tin o . The t r i 1 court had found f i t to question th is on the follo irin g reasons:! That the s c le document which h-d been producod in court had not "been signed "by e ith e r Innocent ICostantino or Aidrn Togete thus m aking-it su spect. This fin d in g was endorsed by the f i r s t ap p e lla te court. I see no merit -\t a l l in th is fin d in g . IToither the t r i r,l court nor the f i r s t ap p e lla te court had r e a lly c lo s e ly addressed i t s e l f , to the issu e o f c r e d i b i l i t y o f Aidan Tegete and the w itnesses th$t load w itnessed the s a le o f the l 'nd in dispute on the 25th Il^y, 1970* - The three w itn css03 th a t hrd witnessed the s~le ~nd whom tad signed the sfile document marked as e x h ib it I?A:' t o s t i f i e d on the s^lo of the shamba in dispute together Trith. two other p ro p erties. The r,to ry "by the throe w itnesses i s c o n s is te n tly clc~ r i . e . t l r t tho sh-mb- in dispute li?.d boon one o f the throe p roperties r-olr1 to /.id-n Togete "by Innocent ICostantion on tho 25th Ifcy, 1970 » .Tho lo c a tio n o f thi~ shamba is c le a r ly d o ta ilo d on tliis e x h ib it MAn. T^kin# in to _ con sid eration tho peasantry background of *id"n T o g e te ,. Innocont ICostantino and tho three w itnesses to the sa le of the s ir ribr in d ir,puto to Aidan Togo to and takin g into consideration th e ir evidence on thir. matter which evidence going through the record h-r, "been given by them on throe d iffe r e n t occasions before three ^ rinrry Court IT-'gi..tr t e r< and had throughout remeined d e a r ~nd co n siste n t I see no j u s t if ic ~ t i o n fo r doubting the v e r a c ity o f these w itnesses. I hrvc on tho other hand found doubt in acoopting the evidence - o f Itaimond V i t a l i s and some o f his w itnesses fo r tho fol."1owing roasonss Haimond V i t a l i s fs testimony th a t the l^nd in dispute h-'d been the su b je ct n r tto r o f C i v i l Case between him solf ■'nd Simon Sigmund .^nd that in th at co.se ho h-d been d o el'ro d tho r ig h tfu l oTTicr o f tho 1-nfl in dispute hrd not boon proved. There is r o ' l l y no evidonco on record th at had gone to e s ta b lis h tho boundaries o f tho l~nd in dispute as the v ery l~nd th a t had boen given to him in a C iv il Case i n , 1971 between him self and Simon Sixmund. One would h_vo OTpocted him, T>~imond V i t a l i s , to lead more evidence ‘beyond his more "B e r tio n on the matter. In thin regard ho .could li-'vo produced Simon Sixmund. ~s hie w itness* Luk's ITchimbi SIT. 2 cannot ho s u f f i c i e n t witnoss on tho cr.cc between Uaimond V i t a l i s and Simon Sixraund fo r the fo llo w in g reasons s /..part from his having hoon a resid en t o f the ~ro^ w ithin which the sharnba in dispute i s situ a te d he hrd no othar connection w ith the case botwoon Rainond V ita lin and Simon Sizraund. Under. o^r>ss*-Gzamination by 'idan Togete ho "dmittod th - 1 he h*>d not been a w itness in that c^so nor did ho know tho C iv il C-rjo Fumbor^ He w-s c lo a r ly neith er conversant w ith tho l^nd in dispute nor the '’lle g o d - c i v i l dispute over l^nd sa id to bo the very one now bein g c l “imod by~ /■idan Togoto. Joseph J o 'c k in SII. ,5 once ^ partner o f 'R.-.imond V i t a l i s and w ith whom ho, Haimond V i t a l i i , h 'd worked fo r a c q u is itio n o f tho. land in tho neighbourhood o f tho shambr in dispute h s c le a r ly n tr tori th at when thoy got to tho shrmb-'' in dispute they found s^me b~mboos plan ts planted a t tho edge o f tho shrmb''. Further to th ir liis evidence shows th~t tho lnnd dormrcatod by tho lends o f f i c i a l s fo r R~imond .. V i t a l i s and a t the time him self Josopli Jo-cld-in SIr. 5 not included the land in dispu te, Tho evidence o f Joseph Jorckim SII. 5 therefore supports the testimony of Aidcn Togoto who hnd t e s t i f i e d th a t ho had during .1971 ^nd 1972 planted some bamboos trees on tho sh-mb^ in d isp u te. Tho t r i a l nn.gi'*'tr^ to had a t tho st^ r t of h is address to tho assessors drawn tho a tte n tio n o f tho assessors to tho f-^ct th "t Aid^.n Togoto had in h is cl^im maintained that the sirrah- in d ir puto had boon dovolopod fron v ir/jin 1-nd Ijy h irn o ^ and th. t ,rhilo ^ virig evidence ho h"d given a d iffe r e n t sto r y maintaining thnt tho l~nd in dispute had. boon bought by him from ono Innocent irost‘ n tio n . This variance has boon found by the t r i " l court ~-nd supTortod. by the f i r s t appoll'-te court ^s going to show tho u n r e l ia b ilit y o f Mdan Togeto. I re?d no such u n r o lia b ilit y in tho testim ony of Aidrn Tegoto. - I h-ve already pointed, out tho co n sisten cy o f ’ id~n Togoto’ s case. Tlio vari~noo rlludod to by the tri* 1 court i r- not f a t^ l to Aidcn To gcto ’ s case whon lo^kod ~t in t o t a l i t y o f the evidonco on record. 'id an Togo to h"d. boon tho ono TTlio h-.d nl anted: tho bamboos trees in the shmb° in dispute in 1971 and 1972* Efo. could r i g h t f u l l y claim to have st?Jrtod dovoloping tho shamV himrolf by p la n tin g permanent troo. The persons from whom he Tr d bought the shariba in qu estion had. boon p la n tin g pcronial crops. Aldan Tegoto *s orvidonco on tho shamb? in disputo w~s d e ta ile d on tho.boundaries. This f a c t was not ."l?uf]od to "by tho frTo subordinate courts. Both tho subordinate c ourto had alluded to tho su b je ct o f boundari on only on reference to pL^imond V it a l i s 'a c g o . Osmund T’al-n d o t e s t i f i e d fo r Raimond V it ^ lis s ta tin g th at tho l~nd in dispute had boon given to Raimond. V it ^ lis by his l-'to f-'thor in 19 ^3 . Osmund Ilil'n d o was 32 yearn in 19 &5 5 of h is g iv in g th is to^timony. Ho imr-t .. clo r l y have boon, too young to r o s il y hnve absorbed tho dot i.V* of thi~ case. This apart, reading tho ovidonco r-s r> T-rholo, ono c l e - r l y ae^n that ho know v ery l i t t l e "bout thin c 's o , I see no merit in loi— evidence. Ro?ding the judgmont o f the f i r s t appellant court, I ” ,'s -stoni~had to nee tho f i r s t a p p e lla te court also basing i t s d e cisio n on m.* tto r s that wore not in ovidonco. Thin court found i t f i t to -]/o b^sc i t ? d ecisio n on a l o t tor th t had boon •written by tho Chairrcrn o f K ih-ngi Iialiuta to tho TT rd Secretary o f Kihangi IJa hut a c e r t if y in g th t tho. land in disputo had belonged to ^ainond V i t ^ l i s . There tps nowhere on record th a t such ovidonco h~d boon produced, in th is c' no, The ... _ f i r s t appollanto cyurt actoc;! on extraneous n rtto rs ^nd th is w^s extrem ely ir r e g u la r . Further to t h is , tho f i r s t a p p e lla te court n rg ir,tra to . , could not have thoroughly gone tlirough tho record fo r had ho done so, ho would not have s ta te d in h is judgment th at / idan Togeto h'-d not produced, in court tho witnossos th at had. witnessed, tho sa le o f-th o two shambcs rnd. a,house on 25th U?y. 1970 . This apparent f-ilT iro i s very ir r e g u la r , to s ' y the lo a 'it. Having gone tlirough the record ~nd considering th$ pounds o f appo'l as w ell ~.s the v erb a l representations before mo, I -m s a t i s f i e d t t r t the case o f '.idan Togete TT~s strong 'nd s u f fic ie n t , fo r e s ta b lis h in g his cl^im but th is strong c~se h 'd n^t boon properly evaluated by both the t r i ^ l court rnd tho f i r s t -p p o H 't e court. Tho t r i - 1 court had mis d irected i t s e l f in c v -lu r t in g th is evidence by c lin g in g to unimportant matters ^nd by f a i l i n g to -ddress i t s e l f to the c r e d i b i l i t y o f tho w itn esses. Tho f i r s t "p*'>oll''tc court misor~bly f a i le d in i t s duty as the f i r s t ap p e lla te court in not su b je ctin g the evidence before i t to fre sh re—e z-n in '-tion ~nd e va lu atio n . A ll th is court did i r s to endorse the fin d in g s o f f ' c t by tho Primary.. Court and. in some c^sos to fin d support fo r i t s fin d in g s on oxtr*noous m atters. I fin d merit in tho appeal by .‘,id~n Togotc which is horoby allowed with co sts. Tho judgement o f tho t r i " l court T-’hich T* s uphold by the D i s t r ic t Court o f Ilbinga is hereby nu-shed and s e t asid e. The land, in disputo i s declared as belonging to .id°n Togote. >— -V Yahya Ihibama Judge 29/8/87