19880905 TZHC Tanga

I ­ 'twtt It M LI1I COt OF TZJ.I LT QIV' CAJ i.O 19 OF 1980 ALLY 1SI3U Ki1.111, 0 4 V 0000• o/ m/3 Twataft & CO. 54ratQs Vexss .A.&IDI IOUJJ and fc' tjut oraob3Lent and p3aS.m fca p3aintiff, 4 Ally Ea%ibu CaJ0Jnbe of the 1>.3p82t4flOfl$ co3.ogy and Obteios. at the K3irna4az x'tetian )edtc4 Centre, MoeIj a64z$t the defond Mr Abedt ) bauett NaVft The case to7 the p34ntij Ls t1r4 he was Qfforod a xkAi of Occ14anoy cr a piece of la -4 c1ecribo4 as P3.o no oi/*8 Block I,B. ZTV, Bctibo Az'oa of Mwvgn Townslip (now a oipy) for a tom of tirtree ioare pith effect from t4he fj.rs day of April, 1973 He a000tec', the' aaid offer ui Ioh, 1975 paid the rsoessary goes .&xt final.y obtatto&. a Qeifioe of Qccc,noy (no.1 3o.3om) wii&ch k.e Ove"ntually t registered with the Assistant of i*les at b1shi 1 see He paid the land rent for the p igci 1976 to 1981 1 inclusive seó ]bit. Up lbapeattez, 2e tz3d vith Jn Ugu vt2) who had the plot# oereci md bvcUdimg majezi4 in the of sand, ao or cippings cnd atqiee bouht and deAvoo rod thereto, A p3.an of 'c btildirig ibicb the p3z4AWf wanted to erect on thu A0 ii o j' 4WAN4 , r LU *'4 W sSfbri I.. s. din to him this ias dw to a ô cbinati on of wdgenoioa of 5ozjos and the fact that he had to go omrsoas for htghor 1oarnthg. When ho eventually, creo TaW. and visi.ud as C/a a q tw Tq. ,upUwS ' puno pw puv '.o 000 powI "lTp oclo. p4TA 'H 6L6i. 'otrr uç svi& cñ3tz o ouo o jxctz 4.mOt Ot. YtO- tXTECt OL 'OS1X 8tt Ut OOU4O oA t tc&O4otj ]q ' pç ot .tou ôtojj *Tq so li 'BEt. O X .o. OOO PT .uuo;op o ouu or ; Azz jo, oouo . spcc UD21I 014 O 'UQI? .) et. t1 9O o opo or j.; ur?r1 o'Iot ttS0to GXO4 o. OJ.UC Oo ptA2 UO'. 9crt UT IoTd oq, 30 tuem& .p m3 çrxoep ot. ctoqs o. pzoxd ctirE ouo 8OO pUtt °tT3 401fi 9t$ ot .XaO vtx stç ;o ttotoo4te1 o. iuWId ttoz ptzoj otj ç -,JVTqr6lod aocu tzii ouop ova çt1 i.°tq '°r ot; tX'JIoI ot UOt. oq, O .p iop ptn ,uq=,t 00t3jO pu'tT( TTq. On.. :.1Xc OI OUVe ut. tUptI ot os ot jo iij otp. o, jq eç- •c4n1sçp trçq.ocI etj . U0 .tAt 3t1.ttt'?tct 93 pt!? Ot £2S ITJ 41to otj. jo ztt 'itL. pobp ptit .ito otv. tto 't 1oIor(iT ot. woi 3:z sonst uri.rnc pu 'auo £ro.. poçtJtat o'xtdsr1 etj. 3° itOO UTet EI° $ttO'q uol. jo iop9 tl300t o IoA 4UCAO jo ootxosq otp,. u-c os O1.ZO O.Att 4 ZWtCt ot O 1t: tI10 qoTt çt jv oprLtdmF OUR ç qtmiitiioo o1 q4ç•3t qo:. P-L-non 1 7 'jDaurç2o OV %T9 ot. uo'o;cr ciq. otoozd 'ooptcç c3Wp?tCI Ot1. ;•ç 'oçpn.zct noqt 4 olsir rcissoxDipS-alu T j• •oot oVq. $o' pu urctc o.'zq duTs o: 'c.otd et. otG.AD'P 41tT1U3ep O '3oj Utffi ot. tflp& otGO X!pUr ToTdT O fl3OO jnjwYT tfl. SA 9tj wptVç. S 'ir tdsoct 'P 10ttJ )tj'. T.ZO otq. v qow o i.Ot .utzojop CY 30. otOtthco o.zot oq. ;ti øsçJ4q.O pç .o':t. tt1 0Lt ot £rxtTxto uodfl 'otxa Slar, totduo £po • p0OZO M Ot[ utq. 'tq3I 0$ 1?U tzçpflnq °'°" '6 PUTJ o- ott '.L6 'w u 4 44 - 3- out and people were vor1dn on it, Ho noticed, 1oevor, that the pict appeared bigger in cize than the one allod to him. The defendant was present and tho plaintiff9 again, implod him to stop bt'ilding on his, that is plainti±f's, plot. The defondant refused and told the plaintiff to go and con]plain jbere. The plaintiff wont tiD to Land Office again and demanded to be shown the dofoniinte fiG Halipiti told him that there was no neoOIL and conotontly, therefore, the pair- tiff was shown none. ii.ccoling to t.o plaintiff he un.sxbood this to moan that the said :i1e o: the defendant dcl. not exist in the land olfice. The plaintiff stated in his evidence that he visited Tanga againi.n&ust,1979 He found that construction vork on - the pItt in dispute was in full s;ing. He contacted the dofndant on the third clay and reiterated his plea to the clofendant to stop b ilclii- g but the latter would not yiolcl an inch. )vcntually, in ovcL11Dcr, 1 979k the p)thntif I wioto a letter to the Distx'ic-b L-,nL Officer, Tanga. A copy thereof is ]khibit P8. The body road and I quote:- "Tafadha3t naomba uriipatio 1ciwana kingine nijono nyurba. Kiwanja iii1ichopmia hapo juu 1c±monja10.w. ld.mopowa mtu mwirlcino c:aha 1977 na mtu buyo e1.1ia jenga nyLmbaako4 Kuchelowa 1a U1o;o kujenga aes&iabiBhwa na ball ronyowc yti majsha At mf'anya kazi SerikaL4 ]1ingepondc çuata .ciwanja cbonyo ukubwa kama buo 1a3o hocu ya Aoding to the p4.ntj.ff, rio one had, in feat, told him that b.ie plot had been reaUooted to another pore on. He on'y, assumed that it had and be yms anxi ous to build a house He had by then also already forned the intention to pursue his rs over the &isputd plot further. In rosposo to hs 3.0tter (p8), the pinti reoójvod a lottor ciatod 31/6/80 'rc* tlo ot ZaAd OMoor, i. Zxi iQ &ti4 Uttia the p3Aar# s/4 was offered Plot no 40 B'ock "D" at Majani ?apana Area of the Municipality of Tanga0 In the same letter the plaintiff was n tifcd that tho new offer as in :lace of the disputed plot which, acain, by the same letter t:.io plaintiff was called. upon to formally surrondert by cigning some attached forms. The plaintiff tonderd the said letter and. it nas admitted in ovidonce and mar1d ldihi .9. Ho, lo plaintiff, noithor acooptoe the o±for of the now lo -b nor did.ho sign the 'rxoiidit form in xespact of thu disputed plot. He sent a toloram to the land .o:fic;r, Tangn, intimating thu same, A copy of the said tej.egram is now chibitP.10. Later the Plainti±f received, a copy of a lettzx which the Land Ofi'icor, !tana, addressed to the Diroctor of land Development, zea1aam on the subject of the disputed 1lot. The soj.d letter (a carbon copy of which is now P.11) dated 2/7/30 roads and I . quote from the body there of g- tt(jranja hii:i dLto.own', kwa ndwçu All H. Kajembo Iota baxia ya toic o Nanbarj TA/8738/1 o/pii ya tarehe 21/5/1 973 lcwa rnudc wa hati ya uaiiiIoji ya kiwanja ya r:iaka 33 1wnzia 1st April, 1973. Lakini. haku1e ncicloza ka choct.ote liapo th.ranjani: Baaeaye kiwanja luchi iuo!u liIo.tolewa kwa ndugu Abed Moharned Mattake, loia barua ya tolco nanibari TAD/i 06 39/1 3/PAll yr. taroho 1 5/1 2/1 977 kwa ha fi ya mud.a wa mdalrza 33 koania 1/1/1978 na L.O. No 44786 ilavtolewa. Huyu Nd::.'r amohwisha jenga jengo la Ndug'u Kajombe niwo:e.owo iipoginduwa kiwanja alichopowa kina jengo ).a mtn r.iwin:ine alliarifu Ofisi hii inita- futie kiwanja kingine la'a barua yako yn. tareho 26/11/1 979 ambayo nakiambatanish.ia kwa uthihitisho wako, (see Lbthibit p.8), Zai.cli ya hapo baria, yako yn tarche 3/6/1 980 iic.r!thari LD/69382/23 /Eto IT :::i.sit:L& kwetu tutatue tatizo hill kwa kuriwai-iba Nciugu Kajembo afanyc 'Surrender' na ndipo ahipotuniiwa barua ha. TAD/i 5960/2 ya 31/6/1 980 kwa kuinpa idwanja kingino na Dood. of Surrender. Nakala ya barua raifunskua" (, See Ethibit P.9). S.. -5- The plaintiff told the Ct that t: at was the first time be was hearing 9 officially that t.o defendant bad been allocated the plot in dispute • it sens the plaintiff then wont and briefed his 'awyer. At the -time it was Nr Mahatane wL. 9 incidentally, also partiall: represented the plaintiff at the hearing of the case before the learned Couxsel 9 with leave of the Court, witbclxew froa the case, Mr Mabatano. 9 acting for the plaintiff, by his lottox' dated 14th July, 1 980 notified the Land Offioer, Tanga 9 that a civil action uas being instituted in the High Court at Tarira for trespass against the defendant. In paragTaeb two of the said letter s a copy of which was sent to P12) and p]x-:i.ntiff (Lh0 another to the defendant Nr. Tahatario addressed the lcnci Officer, Tanga, in the foiJcii.ng terris, and I quote:- "Ha-ta kama Ih' L.IL 1:ebc alionba kianja ldngino katiLa barua yuhe taroho 26 Nover:tha 1979 ilikuwa an ra.ana 1rnha au tai Idi;anja nyongeza a 2LQ rq 1amba ikuia hahitald. 1d.a;.nja chako bile olin mwanzo Plot no 501/8 Bortho JLrea. ICama ujuavyo ld.wanja hichi mpaka leo ni mali yako." ThQ.p.aintiff denied occiving a copy of t c reply to tbi.s lottor that is to say, if t]c was any reply at allo Instead be received, C. letter 9 .dted 12/8/1980, from the Regional Land Devo.opmont Officcr, Tanga. This is EXh. P13. The said lottcz' was actually in onse to his telor'am (sco lxh, PlO). The bQdy of the said letc eads. a:eci I quote it in extensor- 11 1 TJlipeya ld.wanj'. hichd k;a mudn wa miaka 33 kuanzia tarehe 1 rii, 1973. Ulitald.wa kuanliza jengo 1a ldpinei cha miak: . miii (2) tokr, tareho yn toloO:y bald. hiyo, 2. Baa"yn rd.aka a:itano(5) kupita bun yn kiwanja IÜCliO 1eondelczwa ;ana kilipnza mtu mwingino. - . : *.. - C 3 • Uliandika banira weso I'IyOTIO luomba upatio ld.wanja kinç4ne baacia - a iuona lcrarnba kiwanja uJ.icho poia kimelaisi joiIJ.a na mtu i't.inino. 4 • Oralji lako l. lilathal:ti':a na ukapcn:a Idwanja ldngine ambac a ulikataa ddso,, 1c:ar:a LTLTTiCiTLY, 11 KL LNJA KflTGü.0 Pia .i1ali:ca kutia sahuid Rti ya kurudisha 1d'anja (Deed ci 3::nd') chako clan aali Sorihaliri lakini uli.lcata. Yoto kssan aa&lhilaiisLa kwaxfoa huna msimar:o ltjka sualz Ni hut olztnc. no. 1;uhnli kwako kambo. aliyepewa aliondoloa kuldendolon i5.. r):ja Licho bila T:nsiwasi. Juu yt'. Ardh.i hiyo sasa i:].1 i1a jenura nyaisfba ,u horofa yenyo t)aid bli 807,100/= (Shs. ria wma na saba .illfu na mia Kr'xia unataka Lnciel no. uidiihaji a riiana hivi (Na 500/18 na 50/1 C Boo) tafadia]I n.tuLlio hundi yn 807, 1 00 z:W.i:r. .i ii.ia (premiuxi for uxha iistoci improvement) yo., nytrba zi iopo Lccorciing to an endorsement on :.:h0 r.13, it seras the plaintiuI had received this letter by 1 8/6/3o. lie ic plaintiff g stated in his evidence - and. he endorsbC. to tc sarsu ciffect on P1 3 - thai by then the nattor was already Cothrb It was not. This case was not filod until The plaintiff stated irs. his evidence ths,t by SoDtoLibor 9 1980 the house which tlis; defencLsn.ta.o biiJdinr' on the disputed plot was lioaring completion0 In Novo boi', 1 980 9 lao, plaintiff received a lott.r fran the Dii'octor of Land DoveJ.opmnent Daxps, Salnam, dated 30th Soptorbc, 1980 (Ixh. P14 A) infc-rLi -;.nC,,1dm thai his Ri1it of Occupancy ov-cn tbo disputed plot had, by Presidiential order, been revol.nd because of his fhilujso to onply with Pam 2 of tk ters and conditons of the said occupancy 0 Attached to P.14 A was a foraal notice (fmh. P.14 13) wherein the p.aintiff wns notified, in trirs of soctionlIO of the Land Registration Ordmnancu, Cap 334 k by tl.o Rodistrar of Titles G• I that the plzaintiffts Bight of Occupancy ovcr the plot ixi .sube was revoked by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania on 27 day of Soptembo 1980 and further that the Dood of revocation vas duly ro4sterod aainat the relcvaxrb Title on 14th October1 Meanwhile the plaintiff's advocate had written the dofcndat a letter, dated 4th Auvirb, 1980 deniandin& surrender and vacant posee sion of the disputed plot. ten days from the date of the said letter a copy of which is now hh 2.1 5. The defendant neither suiTonclorod nor vacatc. the suit plot. Instead he Ic defend-an -b, has erected thereon a house worth shillins Two million. The defendant, in ).üs defence 4 nCourt 9 stated tiut made an arlication in ritIn to tao land offIocr, Tanga,Ltwo plots in 1977. A copy of the said asplication, dated 10th January, 1 977 is now &h D3 La response thereof he was offered two plots, nc. 500/13 and 501/18, Bom'oo Jrea, nw.; the latter, lo no 501/18, boin3 t a one in dispute in the instant proccodin, The relevant latter of oLfer is ihh, D4 The defencnt was offered a Rint o:L Occupancy ov-or the sej.d two Diots for a tom of nino -by.-nino .ars starting from nuary 1 973 ° There i.e a cc icucvn alteration of the year , (1977) on the date Of the letter of offer (D 4). The dof3a attributed this to a typing ctror. His explanation is borne out by the o:ficIal receipts w2ich wore issued to the defendant on payment oT the neQossary ±ces ths. 533, 5C and 51) which show that the transaction must, indood, havc taken place in 1 977. The 0aid fees were paid when the defendant cccptod the offer, He was p subsoqntly issued with acortiiicatc of occupancy wj1b Title no. 13030/80 (xh 33.6) which the de:[endant re ered with the Rstrar of Titles on 15. 10.80 at The dsfoncIa4 told the Covrb that ho began to clear t1:c plots in May, 198. There wore than some few craps bolonn to an oroyoo of an as.an wh7Iving in the nichbourhood. io said oxn1oe BshicU Saicli O)IT31 jvo evidence in this . — 8- case on the side of the defeai. - . Lccordin to the cIofoM-. nt there was not oven a grain ot hui.ldin material on the site at the time,. The crops in the for:.:'. of caesava and maizo had their manotory value aesossed. haontually, Rashid 11,1S pormi- ttod to haivce -t his caesva which. ias then ripe and in addit.on to this the clefencant paid him eao3:., Sh 600/=, in the presence of the Lcal cell leader s . of one ITurdin Hassanali . ....... Bharraai (DW2). When his buildin( plez was ready the defendìant submitted the same for aruroral the relevant authorities, This was done and then sometime hetiaen 3i.uic and .iugust, 1 978k. ho boan to b'.r&ld on the plote, 0ontructi was completed in December, 1 980 at tIl? cost of h, 2.5 ri1]J.on, The valuation was clone by the valuer in charo, Tana Boion. The valuation roport was tendered and adìiijtted in evidence 1kb, D.8. The cle:;on'Lant recaUed -bI.: t ho did receive the demand letter for surrender and vacant possoesion (Uxh. P1 5) frcm the plaintiff's former advocate. The dof dint afdod that ho however passed it over to his advooao, Mr. Lesscin uccadam, with instructions to reply thereto. This was done and the clofendant, subsocpntly9 received a copy theroo', This is bb.D9. J.nong other thinGs, Mr Muooadiin adcrossed the olaintiffTs advocate in the followinG torus, and I cuoto "I-b is ducprisi2g t)at your client never raised a all the thilo t: plot in quosticri was beinG dovo- loed and a ti.lriinG thereon as bofiw; erected (which is now • L complotcd.)' It appears your client is out to capitalis on the toil and r.l of my clim:. CO CQcQe C My client has o1otainod tie said plot lawfully from the Land Office Any action taken by your client in the matter shall be defended holding your client iablo for ti,.e costs and the coroqi.ences thoreof' -9- The Assistant Rocistrar of Titlos attache(1 to the Zonal Iind Rcistry Moshi, one Mr leo Siaon Muakitema (P2) 8avo evidence in this case on the si:.o of the plaintlif. He recalled to have 'conic across' a file in respect of the d.ispi. too. plot. As a oattcr of fact ?tT2 LaCl the said. file Lth him, JC confirriccl tL -,t the title d.oC. in respect of -t: e said plot wes resterocl in tLc nar:.o of t : 1 :inti:Lf on 3rd May, 1 975, and the sante was revoked. on 14th t:. OctOber, 1930. Mr ic.,a1lema.(ETi2) went on to state in his ovidonco th.,t the present title holder is Abed. Moh ::e:':h. t -baha, the clefoncl:,nt, and further th:;b the delendante title dood. was ro4storod on 15th October, 1980. Lccordlin to hr Mi' Idlean 7 there is no ovorla pine of titles in res•cct of the c'i.sputeC. plots Mr Nidloma also tendered. in ovidonco a oortifi.od photocop of the Deed. of Revocation in respect ci' the clisp-utod. plot rcvo1dn the plaintiff's Ri.).t of Occupancy (h0 Dl) an6, a certified hotocy of tc alication by the Director of Land. Devol ont SorvjQcs for istration of the Deed. of Revocation D2, At the hoinni.ng of the hcarin; of this suit learned. Counsel for the plaintiff s Mr Mahatanc, and. learned. Counsol for the clefondrnt, Mr TaLir All, submitted. a list of thirteen aeed. issues. Some of these are 7 i;ith. p,Tcclt rospect to both .carncd. Cc sol,rtrQ ropetitionri hat 1 7 novertheoss, propose to deal u±tl. or conid.e t .oe' seriatim. The first issue is Did the hla.ntiff oht in a 7vnt of riht of occupancy over Plot no0 501/18 K,B. ;..j:r j - : ombo Area Tanr. for 33 voa from 22nd April, 1 975 hit. oat hcatin; about thu hush, the arswor to tLis insuc is fc- e.c. :.n P1, which sneaks for itself. P1 was neither chicllo0ec mc:. etad.ieted. 9 It answers d.J.s issue partly in the affir:mha't and. nartly in the no. ttie, In a word. it shows that the 111a:1.nti±f v s rantod a Rit of Occtancy over the plot in Cisliputo for a poriod. of 33 3ars. The effective Late was 2 however, not 22n Apri1 1975 hut 1st dar of April 1973. 10 The ctor does not end txrc Nevertheless, I wills ecanwhulo, turn to the second. isun uhich poses the ciuestion: If so did the plaintiff incur cxonses of Sli. 34 9 000/= or any sun wiatsoevcr for 1fl' the axcrosaid grant of Right of Occupancy? In Para 4 of the Plint t:is amount of Sli 34 9 000/= is shown as hoin "the value of the land.. . 1xfore dovolopeent.' The question of buJnG or so.1JJ.n land hero does not ars. Indeed the srzac wot1d be oontrar:r to the National Pc3.iy on Lands The material point to note Lor however, is that the plaintiff himself9 or any of his two witnesses for that matter s- did. n ot say that ho ovor paid Sli 34,000/= for the plot in dispute to anyono anywhere. and at any timo. Is a matter of fact the plaintiff specifically doniod. to have paid. Sh 341 000/ which be allood was promiu -. for the plots I would., thu answo±' bhc second issue in ti..o ne;..tivo, that is rc-gardflvj the al1od. oxpondi.tvxc of Eh 34,000/=. 11owever 9 in fairness to the plaintiff, there is ovidenco, oral and documentary (h P2) to the effect that ho paid. lanO, rent for the plot for the period. 1975 to 1981 1 ino:uaivo, at the rate of eli0 340/= per annum and. Sli 1 5/= for two sets of Stamp Duty. By simple arithmatic the total amoents to Sb 2403/= only. To nW. minds thIs amount oalfies for the category of any other sum presented in -the scoid. josuc as an àitornativo to the figure of Sh 34,000/=. If iood. bo I shall rovorl, to this point later in this jud.mcnt 1eanwh±lo, I will proocd. The third. iosw iro was th.o Laintiff ID poesosion of or ertjed to the )oscssion of Plot no 501/18 IC,B. XIV Boinbo Area Tanga at any -time material to the sui.t? To my mind, this is the cxot crucial issue as the cicis. on upon it hiries the dctormin.zig factor in thic instant proceeding. 1j, is a norally accoped princilc of law that to maintain an .ction of txQspaso to 3.armd, the paintiif xnut have boon in psozsiou of the aiid act.u:.l or constructive, at the iime of the rospas, see Jobatibu bin Trkuv, v, Isi Nurbh portj T1.utt ot ç oqt jo ooT spj. uo ;3ut:td all zo o '(i) olr4c"W'41 uqof zi put TjosmTrE ;;c.tzTwt o Aq uasi sw& ortss -ç sTjj uo X11JUTUld oqj jo rpts o% tzö oppj AMA VIA ;co NO utpt oo j - 'pwo srndo4 .o elov P0901Tv.otfl. o. xoçx! ITne Uo juemdola&OP jtr tno ep..xio .xo old 'Tas tto vi .xo; I)TT 11 VEX SST Annoy OZ. of ttm. iøU OAtjtt 011 Ut Ort:ç oz1. I 1.UOrLb etzoo 4 1apoly son ITus x1j. lotd paradeyy uqj 3D tZOTs3 Ut low SVA xTsumd °P I tOtt& XZtj oq. sçq. o1 uodo OT IT 6ojqujTWAv 00uCTTAq ot. uo io 7is ul 'ti jOOIt? J tUtt"td Otfl. Tt OJJ:P tOOq eAt'q q4rtop oU 'pUTITJ All o. 6 p00 "WsOd ota ut o1 POSTWO q pl3D00. uo j -qutid ot .:tot çquorLboaoo 'pu I -Vas otl jo DUTITj oql uo pos -po SSIAMT, trç UOTIOV jo oro lvqa OOS o. yraylyp 'ua&o 3i IT OsO aq, laycq quql *yas To ourTl ot. lu I01cl poncIr2 oq o Uot$e W OQ 0 1 o- quo Ot( S'11'& XOU ttoçosoa tz MATO QnS 'i1& J3çqJ1ttT[d o0 qzrqq. tt UOtq300AOI pS or. 30 .OoJIO oT '096i. ' qwooii ?c tto POTTY MA TTnS et tOJr)C )UOl) 'it Ot OOAOIot 2t[l iot iCv010 tooMo '0CpAl2 (2tU ptra OOUO)tAe 01 OUO) SWA uoIooA).:t C4 OR.10-JsTS OU sun Waqj yil pO4p1qfl omo sv1 tcc ctcr. :o; ?ui30oKpt uc ot q3tp3j xj 9pOCoOtu OC[ SVCLUeR .X11 11 mo3 Erc: q not 'zxoptttoo JO$ 010to.zci aollaw v oz IT otor.o.c.otq. Aq.uon)oJuoo pun SjTq. ctt oq. Aq papnoIJ OU 00a W&A Md uoq.oAoi pps Oqj lov .xo l0jJ potsrn aq, tto AOUVdn000 JO WIDTa o;jtqutrcT O3 O UAO eTa UO IT JO OUJOj 4 0OMPTAO !L[ I)AO OT a.:oL-f) •utczd q.00t o1 OsTOMM 00t!-t 0 0 opii q:?q. ol xotcI eqp .xot.o &u- • po -c; szt sct. NSA& q.ms o0 op oq. 'qPcp Ott 'pUtrifui 0 1 QT tO4JiI .tZ14Ut sTA Ut q.çrLs oTi, ol ii.z et1p. ot j eos) CtTttOWO OO. low put aoTs000voi ol zco £mCut w SITaTluessa c 9OO oq. 08vjqaxj aqTJ ptt( 0q SoMsex, JO 'H 0 0 ouocxni EJao'::qr:. :o oc o oCi iotq oo Jttpuno.r.ins oot ro.rtc .:cq. --Elc wç pui oç oq. por3p LtS OfltZOJflI LtU cc rO. O CtcO tttO( SI. IZO 0fl1A .cqoxd o o: -'t ooq. 'ooXoL cI Ofl. 1°T 9 tp 'ctt000i Ot[ Oq0[( t tFT.J O UO t.1Oq.EI rrrpimq .&t.t? poioqs OIOA .IOO OtOTq. OO.ICI O. OOtIO)t..O Ott 0 Dt( o.IoTa floflt. UO.AT qrcocT sçt. UO OSO S 1 3.tUt'2 TCT o. Emoad o. oOtzOp.o o-[cTSsTtupi ott .91041-1IosqV '0JO0.X0tj1. -r o.ietj qt tcr!oi o; ot •tutrt oAçTq o. clo.id tctt I ptr 4 02.r21 to 8 T .Xo&pcp ps oq. ovlrcwT 'pp 0qt1øU ali O. SI .I "WRou:qM-1 O.1 sXoqo.iott uoso.1cI s-tn 'tI3 "u ueocDiio s1oqr3wj .x !~ JnT ootzrs st'q I)OSOJOST Ll tcoAo qott SUI 6.91 iq.UOptOUT OSOtfl ioAç.rp pçs err1 cD0T:Oocj Tc.tzT 3td oq. t ootizeut os-Io.&p1 tOn &3.xp o. oti moj o1 q :o).rr 3qvtto .1 'X1DØ O. S .IYfl2 '3Ut3 St U-.- SOLtOUt 4rJ o o. Wa vaq. U00 oouapo oç2 ptnei ots/ot pootzoq souqpt pças otq. -ptit .XI03 103 011t. 2tJC4t '3 '3O qOU Pi? 41t)(I '3tt:. Z0.Ut O. Wt.TV.z St 4-Xfl03 fltfl SOE'3O U1 05C3 O-Utq. Ut 00U0tAO 0A3 qott Jp O 6 qUccTiosttoO ut oçtio ou s't tzw spi. '3t°'Pt .1OATJP o2tZ utoi stt uo jjtqut ecu. .103 ssotzqpt oqu o•:. 'o oq. ssopoo •oixiw. oçiqo.xcI q.Mq Z TA [LO St qiq oottoptAo tvç 0CLSSr1-çr3 Ut lToaoul ott s toçtpt A S.I'3Ott 1O..01').Otf 't 10IW1? iTc'3S GTtt cc ttooq o.j ol porto o q rt3LTK zTq,ouop ueoq pi7q . T?tIt 0n51u IN UIOJ:UT o poti uç oti& .z-ç.xp s -çt o. qo qq- 3°7[ & 3t O43 t)U .IOtO otq. Uo oXi5LiU tyj 53tirpmq oqci o Uo ott'3.rl. .10 q.OTd OCfl. JO )U20tO otn. SucI ou ptp oio caqq ut ..lUtptso.1 otzitq t.xoq'.i orj. i3 sv yonutt J3trçvd otq POW4U 0. 10 3 SV puts JO Spi0I £1101 ueoqçj puti U!ctcITt(O 30 SCItJ4 tto 0U0S U07(OlCj JO SPt?0 t £i.IoI tzoq. ato& oot 'pOIC[U0S3'3 np oxo cç.ro;t Ju -rpnq nu u poIz'oo St24 q.00t otq. 'JTtT1tTL '). O T).1OOO7 GOtB Ot tt0 1'3T1O'3U1 SUtTTtCLct OICL1.'IOSSU O. F 'O.a S. 1. O-I'3o1O q01 poncIstp Otfl. OA3tI oq JO O'3Ws.J1O 0 S'3 1)OPIOSP Ot( '3Ot '(tia) oq.ntzj .IN — A - 13 - In at least two of thom (P4 and P6) the years of issue wore clearly altered, by suerimpoeit: onYpom 1986 to 1 976 and from 1985 to 1975, resoctivoly. Not only that, In lio dcfaaoo the defendant swore that not even a 8Iin of bui lbing ir Acrial was put on the disputed plot when ho went into occation t]:ereof, lIe also denied that the place was cleared for huildinco He was supported in his denial on these two points by I& Bharmal (DT12), the local loader of ten houses whose hoas a uas next to the plot in dispute and DW3 who swore that for nine years inmediately before occupation of the disputed paot by thc cIofordant ho, DW3, was usinc the same as his tohamba. Both DW2 and DIT3 are independent Eitnosses with not AC to anin or lose out of t11is case, I accent thcn as hOnest and tDuztworthy persons. In the result I answer the fourth iosu in the neatie. Issue five i'oads: Did the dofedant in December 1977 or at any time tL:rcaftor trespass on the suit Plot or interfere with any rights of the plaintiff co suit Plot? For reasons already given in the third issue ahavo I. straightaway, answer this issue in the negative0 I now turn to -the sitI'. iesue. It roads: "Was the defendant 'erted Right of Occupancy over Plots nos. 500/18 and 501/18 X.B. XTV Tanca,....for 99 years a--Lfrom 1st Januy 1978 and cUd La obtain Certificate of Occupanoy Title Number 130530/80 over t a Ccbinecl Plo-ts?" As, I think has sufficiently bean demon tratoci in the synopsig of the evidence given hereinabove evidence on this point is availablo from the p1aintiffs own side as well as on the dofe-. ndsnts side, On the plainti±f 1 s side the some was given by Mr hwakilema (PW2) and it has neither o1ialThngod nor contradiotod by the plaintiff. On the o n&chts side it was testified by no lesser a pars on than -the dofoant himelf and he was 0•O .114 c oATVir-7. Lq- u .z -ç- qiu ynst putt U01qs0n13 tr)iSr1 oq o.J;': :r cpn stq UT obu& SLTO3Qt IOj &3Jt-LIT1T o. o. 'rJfl Io so - erroo uruoop 07Li, ircr uoioi-tD "::q sooc ons t:)to oq 0p IOJt tYtZ poi ç1J'- tt c)r trç oflc3s flttJ. IOAII2 0q OJI O. T1OIQ St ç rLtoj .xc)qrnu ens'i q ':. trc outiAp pati SUosa toLT 'Efasr ttnoj jo uoq.q.00.x 000: onp &. s .Ii.L os rc 9L6i. tzJ tz $o per:qiioo ot uocn 1)OIO.UO )ttOO1) Ot[ UOt& O[ TtLS ttO UOtOOAOp Lut ozo st xc .fcLt o.Iot ooi•i p°' L 'ott onssi •oAtt;32 O. Ut OttSt qxxo o:r. ioAstra I rV.TOf3'jrlE )uo?axOj , OTI .10d 212Ct).X LIO j:o oo os'(u'3 3T) ;jtt- d JO 050fl 2 tZt.flt 3tIt ' ()OSt'tIM soq.so tio.xj Ooal qor ptot o';t pe$ctn000 ,xo p -io u;op °'q 9L6 . ' L'xtnu qrç; t:iO;ç ooJo tti qrq. st cr 'x 'j j7 Jo ooj::o zqoo o tIoçooAax jo *( eot.oj o: Y. tori o uo cT -r- gr jo po::TOAoJ. uoq AVOr[2 2' Oj tS) "°-° fO 1tPTa JP.UTECt ot 'o96 t. ?' o•t 'qms stq..or; ;jtut - i or. urp. c q pui 'o9/0t./ . 0- T uoçqonb trç sqoid onq 'ta. Ioo o.tq. c( POT?Z tZzJpuejop OrTq otq. q s.ojs rotpi 1)U JO 001 ttO O0tI0 L)tO o °L6 t. rirtur s.x-çj t3DIJ 5Jtttzut?oq EZO OUtU—PqOUtU Jo ixoq.i io. (oia .10 )Srcir) &q. utoq .1oq4i ci.:q) z5u'c 'oorT oqrio y ° a.)j: 9 L./iOc -L)Uln 9 BOLt 'sqo(t oikq. .1AD ptt? ut Aouinoo0 Jo 4-2t' '2 ' ti'a.2 •t uvpuojep ot. aOtjs Icla 1oo l)OOptt SEOp 3OSq .ICJ oS 'CtOWOPI0UT 'q0t& 9cr TqTtr po.iot?o.i Jp (9I ixt 4o9/oEco 0tZ) Jlosfrc oçj JO 0OçJtq.Io3 Ot. 7-IoJ t(q UI OOLtODTAO daoqa0moop JVC )E4IO(Idns Jo - frt. - '4. A p '- 15 The nineth jssu asks the tuia t:i.on, Is the defendant in any way liable to plaintIff fo:.: 50 9 000/ or any sin ;:hitsoeve Aa±n, tor reasons c ..icadr given anL on the evidence waiJ.ablo and in all tks circtristances of this ease be this question is and indeed it zanswered in the negative. The tenth issue is: aa the allecl grant of flight of Occupancy to the 4aintiff over s.t Plot revoked? II so when? The undisputed cvidonco and naterial available show that the said RiIt of Occupancy c:.s, indeed, revoked on 27th Septes.bor, iOCo (See Dl), The Dd of Revocation was rcg-isteicd.. on 14/10/80 and ti:.o ;:kintiff i:as s duly notified (see P 14 A and B), So mucu for issue io 10. I now tu:cn to issue no. 11. :t reads: Is the plaintiff estopped fru claimi.rid any rihts aairst the deen.dant for the al1ec ticerass and o -taer cla::ns maac in the plaint? Sinco tks plaintiff was x.ot i.n possession of the suit Plot at the time ci filing this suit hs indeed, cannot legitimately claim any, rights or recover any dauageFJ frcm the defendant. This, I must point oi4, does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff, if he fe1 injured is abs olutel3r without remedy. Ho could, for elzample if he so islied, hwq ough-b redress agjnst the Land. OL cer whom the plaintiff felt double crossed him. Alrnatively, or in addition thoreo if be fol* tat the revocation of his Right of' Occupancy over the svi. Plot was contrary to law he cous have, accoraingly 9 suoa the Ithuster responsible for lana iatters, The plaintifx dad or has clone nsther. tt is hnreby ropoc tea t 3avj, in the absence of any allogutions of fraud a('i1 the defendant the plaintiff cannot so to say s expect any logitimate victory over bi.c acivors:.ry in the ins.nt Jal oE.ttlo. This should be suffi4en to dispose of the eloven -bi: issue 1 The tvelfth issue is: Ybat is the value of the improvements and cieve.ments made by the do.'eaacnt on the combncd Plots? . 4 ./t 6 44 — Ic - The evidence on this point is t Q 1-and I accept it as true. It shOIS that the o$; tJ;.as htdlt a storoc1. houo and an out buildi.n valued, at ¶Lo nillion and f:i.vo hridrod thoueancl s:.illinge only (sli 2.5 ilJi.on) on the scallod combined. Plots. Piiially, 'ftc thirteenth issue osod -ftc quostion To what reliefs are the parties entitled? I tlJnk thez'e is obv.ous, loud and clear. Tith out cating about the bush, the suit fails endt it is ho:1esby , aco ind'iy, cliselasod. The dSIfQndzxt is dod the rigitful OOCupie.r 0± the suit Plot 4 The defendant will have Lio coete to 130 taxed by 'the Taxing I'Jiastcr. / OA. L-M-L jUXIC rf enbdlivcrcd, at Tan th±E 16th. cr of eptembcr I 983 '\ \\Y •o - once of Yix Tah,ir J,JJ. for tho defendant and in 40 abs ,4 theintiff, (p:.;.D, s~ JUDG. 13