20030429 TZCA Dar es Salaam

... - .t• ...... . . . . .-, -~: ~,_. ::c~·:·, ' -. ·~ ,:-. -~--y~'t--·. . IN THE COURT .OF APPEAL OF TANZ4,NIA ·•:~ ~·;·.· ·"' ·:;,; ;· • • 'II• .. ~ : ,I · AT DAR ES SALAAM • ':\.:,_: . r·~ .,._: ' - . -~----.......................... . ·'.' .'!')< CIVIL APPLICATION NO.· 99 CF 2001 ·: In the Matter of an Intend~ Appeal Bii.:'I'wEEN '. PATRICK KIMIID. .. . . . . • • APPLICAN~~'. • . •. AND .. .. . .:ii;,· ~✓: .A.'iOTHER. . . . . . . • IID3PON~ " . : !._ SHAWE.JI ULillDA & (Applicati)n-for Leave to app~al to Court of ,-.ppeal of Tanzania fran the , Decision of the High Court of Tanzania. .. , ............. . a.t · Dar es SaJ.aam) · (Ihema 1 J .) ...' dated the 9th day of July, 2001 in Miscelhneous ci Vil i>.m>lication No·. 81 "ot w ·. ROLIN Ge> ,_: ': :::{,c-:_~:.f:_{? ~•••. . . l .. .,: MROS0 8 J .A.; .k>• -~ ·.•., ..... • ,.i.. " ... ' ,· j .-... 2 l-·: :: ·. l . •. .,do· . . • • ' . : ... / ~ ••j::i application for leave to appeal to have no merit and, dis!°~ed. ~t.;· _-· :.t· . :·• He baa now brought the applic~tion to this Court. --. . ... · - \ ' ... ":··: .. ':"'"" A.t: the hearing of th:L:~ application the applicant was_ repreaell. I. . i. .. . ·• -l-.·;.·::._ :·:~~~J;t :\~;--· ~e~ · - by Mr. Luguwa 1 learned counsel, and the first reapon?-~-t . . . - .• • • ".. 11~--- ·.' ·. "· ·... • :' .,lfi: . ■••- person 'while the scccnd respondent was absent and ~P"--~~d~~:, .. ,._., .. . ::; .· .. _,.· ..., - Mr. Msewa, the legal officer for the second:rcspondent, ~ sent a letter to court explaininS that he was to be away to Tabora_ to _at ... O • : .. , • I •' •; .:,).•-::• ·~ •- • O t to his brother who was seriously ill. Mr. Luguwa·-·sugges~d, ·anctX:t'. . . . . . ... . . / .. ' ~=·: -:-~ accepted the suggestion, that in order to avoid further delay pai-tj,ee: . ' . · should file vl;-_itten &ubmissions. Mr. Shaweji also agreed and pranised I .(i ~,- to inform Mr. Mse"111a to file Written Submissions. Mr. L~wa sent .. f~· . ,., ·l.L ;, ..... :· . . __ in.his written submissions .and wh..'lt appea+5 to be a joint 1o1ritt@' . '. eubm'issio» of .the respondents was also received. ' ' . .. ~, ·;~~~ ~-- ~ k In the applicant •s notice of motion it is contended ~ t Iheme., , ; •. ·r-· - J • did not .assign any reasons for dismissing the applicati(m to t -J'' '- . . . ' .,~ .. , - High Court for ·leave to app'3al and that Rwaki.barila, Prin~ipal · \:' f":.. ' , :--~~;: .· .<'~;:~: Resident Magistrate· with extended jurisdiction, di<l~np~~~,ide I '. 1 grounds of malioious prosecution and false impriscmment .b~t· had'.,. _J ll •• • instead dealt with an unpleaded issue of OWll.Crship of land. [: The second respondent, through its counsel, Mr. Olaf Ms~~,.: ~ \ ; · _:., 4 1 ., filed a. Counter-affidavit · in which he argued that there ~as a land ·-.. · · ·· ••-: ;f- ciispute between I the time of tho ,. I 1 Sacre~ as well as a Village Government Secretary for Mkuza. Iz;i:· r .. • \ . . .. • the· two capacities it was his duty to :implement. both CCM and V • . Government resolutions regarding the disputed land. Mr• Msewa put , .: : .. .. .;" ' ; ' • ,;:-~.-- ' .• - . t ::"f••-,-_: ·- .. :,:;: ·.· :~~:~. ·the land dispute thus in paragraphs • 1,, 16, 1'1 and- ,19 . ~-f~his ~- . .,., ·• . t: ••. t. ~ . ·: ·~ ,,,_ . ~ ....~~ ~'JI';.~ . . . .;i •••-· •• -"' .,.•, • .. ,;·•.; l ~ . \ ... I. ..- . '• .. . .. ' ... . ~ ' ....·..... . ·,.·.• ~ :..~ .:.: ·..... ·:· ..:: . . .., ... ·-- ...... ·. ·n15. That .all i:hc foi:..r witn.~~-- t~ld . the .. . ,. .: :·: · ~•:· ~.::. ::);;·.:··-~:::~~-- :. - ·. ~ ~ ~ ... . ... . . . .,. . . ............. , cour.t that- ,the._ land in ~pute . -~ ..• : .~~;,..-:····.··: · .. ·-·.belonged.to Mzee Mathias the father•··\~"_ ·:····~·.•. ·· • ., .... ' ... , .. ·• · ..... .,. .. . : -·. . ·of o.pplic-.ant who- is ; ...... ,.,.. ••• ,l • •. ::?,;:'. dead: -.:· :. . :_._.. ·: ._,.,._.,.~-:-· - ... • i . ··, ;:_:;;_;·····:.:.~'..•·;.:··;.:..:•·:·: ... .. _ . . ,,··_~\.,., . if; _ . •·<---,--·. ·. · ·•~::." __.. ,:·:-• "•16. ~.i.-.3.t M'7.00 Mathias gave the J.and:w·....-.· ...,:. ,. . ;.,.:_,..,....., ,-r.. . '· .... .. ..• . ' , ' ........ _: ., ...... ~'-• . . . ., ... · _.. _ · .. , .• · ... _tile Villae;c Gm~.I'Dlllont. • - ·,, ...::. • • .• • ,. • • - 1' -.·~ .:·:·::;' _-_~·-·., · ._,i-.. • - - _ ·.:: 4 :~:. • ••• ·•--~--·.. •• •· . . ., ~;;.~t'.. ~- ; .•..--~ 4. ·>·.'11.- That untiJ. h:ia death Mz.ee Me:tmeo--~. ···~,.... · ·· ; · bad..no:t :clmnged 01,ni.e,~·cf .the . . . .. - land in queationo . ,. ... :·•· ·194! -That there is the ·question -~tbel' ·:~,,e_L_ ~ '.i · • ,.., .... •.:·· _.:._:_ /."'~·-···--·:'·.~---· ... ,. ,:·· · · . the 1st. Respondent in putting lmit-,-..... :•;,~_., ... ,.:._ ..::-J·_-:;:-,_ .. _.,::·~ ·""·:,- . """-''(,,; ... ·~ . .' .. .- ~ ......... ,·. • -! ·,; ·' . , in ·r.-.0-tion by rep-:rting the dispute · :. i \,....... .:.•··:•:~ · :- ....to ·:;olice he acted as· an.-~t. ~! · ·.. · - .· .,_:.:-~7¥'j;,7: ::;·' ..., I the ·second respondent-<n-•ncrt". · · • ...•r:~ 't- ., • • I, • / Mr. _Msewa ... . was saying in effect that at the, heart•~ .-the diepute~ ~ ~ . . ' . .. · ·• ~between the applicant and the ·reepqndents_ ~ the _queatJmi,. o.! wt!o • • f .., r ._. '..,:::!ti:.. Nal~- owned the disputed :;:,iece 9f -land..-.. That was what ·w the t , • • "> ... _ ...... • . . ; . . . . ;~~ ~ resp-,ndent 'to complain to the police that the app'l.icad.: bad--: • ·;.. "'·-··'"" y onto the disputed piece ~f land 1 which CCM believed was its property. Mr. Msewa has grasped coi:.ectly the cause of the. diaput~ . 4 -r :.,.-:_.,.r between the applicant ~d the :respondents. Both ~ties had a claim ~ .., . ; ..• ·- ·.·,.... ~ of right over tile disputed pared of land.. It should have been >~-~ .,~~---· 4 realised by the resP<?ndents 1 therefore, that if they,needed-to_~; ._.:.· ~- !Jin; action agai."lOt the appl~c~t who appeared t~ them. to be ~ .a?:~: • • • # • " .. •.. ' ' . ; ··•.a false cl.ai.Ql to the disput~ land 1 t was for, t.herr: to· .seek to ' ·· . , _establish~ownership. It should have baon realised also that where. r · • there is a rival claim of ownership of ?roperty ono does not p ~ j ·· . --~·· t f:, • . .. '". . . ,. ,, i .. .: •.. ....-,,..,.....,.':.,~-!,~~~•- -i;-...,- -~~ ;r:-· - ~- . ·--~ .. . . ,::: ;· . ;·,•. ),Si';, . . ..; t- ... '• ... 4 .! .<~~ . .ir.• .. ~· criminal court to prove one. 1 & claim of ownership. One goes. to a ' • ·""'• 1- civil court. Once the civil court decides on who rightfully owns .t_he . property I the party against whom the dee is ion is given cannot , ., lawfully . take or remain in possesoion .of the J>roperty without ....... · ·, - j permission frOJ!I the adjudged owners. In t~~ case of land.· he would:~ ... ·t • .,,, " 1~. ,,_ ..<. . be considered.a trespasser and·could be· prosecuted for·trespass • .- .. : •-~:Jf". 1~---- •.. • • • • • • • . •, •·•J·• ''fa ·I· W~t I am trying to say is that where there is a ri~al cl.aim ·of '.~,X. r • -· --'A·-. '~ ownership of lan4 one of the parties will not be entitled. to proaewte .. ;;;/; · ·i '. . ... . . ,.~.:-~ : \ f- the·otber for trespass un~sa· he has first es tAblished. ,bja title to., . . it in a civil. court.: ....., f·,. ' .. r ~ When the respondents prosecuted the applicant for trespass_ -"- .,_ .. .,_ \ ~ . '. which led to his arrest, det~ntion and eventual acquittal Q~ a no case to answer, rightful titl~ to the disputed land had no_t been_ l{ established. There was, therefore, the question whether in the. ·• - ·.circumst.mces the respondents had a, reasonable and probable c::ause . to set t_he criminal law in motion against the applicant, 'b~aring ~ I mind that ignorance of the proper legal procedure to .follow is not . J, 'i- -C . .. a defence. Neither the trial court nor the first appellate court app~ciated that the respondents might not .have had justi,fication - -i.·~ ·... ~a . " .. ·,. ,;, ... ~"'!~,\,~~~· 1~,~:• • ; P' 'a •• . . ' ~t _:hat stage for _prosecuting_ the applicant for er~-~ ~'b;'a~~~~::~',_;,. · • . • • • 'I, • ·"!),.f'. '.,,i!; ·l In fact, there was the .letter which was allegedly written 'b7 tho • _ . secon~ defendant (now second !'l)Spondent) on ,31/10/1997 11apologiaing . ,... r . 1 ·,,; , :·.. ~ 1 1 •• > _,.· (for) the acts and confirming that the area belongo to the plainti~,: -~ ;, ~-~ ·suit. . - - The letter was ·tendered as Exhibit P5 at the hcaring.-of the ·civil'" Altholl!,h that le.tter we.a controvential and was -writ~en aft(ll' . ' t·. •· · • ..._. t, .• t- the criminal proceedings had ·en!!cd 1 it adds to show that own~rst.ip . ·-:..· •. .;,"f'!:~(- ·/ .. 1 of the disputed land W::u:J by no mums certain to give 'justification - I ...;~ \ -·. :~. ... ~~_.. ,.,. . •• _.,iwl',i~ -~! -~ • I 1•· ' .. ,, I•\fl·.. ·,.". .. ~ I ; ·.• -··"·t1r~ 1 ........ ·,!/~:. . .. ·.·..,,. _..c_~t -~:.:..·- ;· ~ -~-----· '., ., - / .,, 5. .., ' r . to tbe respondents to proeeco.1te the applicant. The High Court,. IhemP.. 1 J .,. 'c9Uld not. be risht. tbanfore, ~~ ,· . .... ' . :iJl. dismissing the application for l.eavo to appeal he said:-· 11 •. • tho learned Principal _Resident Magistrate ( with) extended jurisdiction properly ·and • exhaustivoly dealt with all the i.ssuea bef.ore it". But one of the iJnportant issues which· the Principal. ~~t -~ · • • • r ' • ,,,. ~ •. •• ' with extended juris_diction did not. consider was whether in t~ . . .. , ' - ...· - ·_:.... . ; ' of a court docision t:noquivocally declaring the seCOlld 1'88~ent ·\. . - . -\ . . . .. . ~ '. :'-~~~4:..· p • · ,.· ~ ,·: · . M'. the rightful o~er of the dispute¢ piece of land-~~~~ . . . . . . . ., . . ·. \ .. ·• · could set in motion the criminal --process acainst tbe applicant.; was not enough that the respondlante believ~d-the applicant was a --~~~~~ .• ~~i;-~cJ:-~h.,!? -t;~ ~~~--~ then took a.ct~- the applicant. . .. , :~~!V :i.:..,.•:. s~--~:.r~-; 1J . .:~~ ., -~·.:·1 :..ou ..1./J ;'lOt !)J.:- !'-;...!~t,t,. ·i...-~~~ibr1,,;, )Jh~-,.~-·. ·.--:_ . .:.-, ~- 1·.I::-~.t!~• ~~~i:~lo~.• .tba~ -~- 9~ti9!1 ~~~~~x:;'t~ :;:~_ts_ , _ i't.-~f./ •- .•: ~ . ;-t. •... bad reasonable and probable cause to proeecute t~ applicant tor' · ._. •;: _,. . · · of Appeal• -; t· • . The applicant ia granted leave to appeal to the Co\U't ot_ ApPO u -?~ tt·i•.: 1.fr~t1 tf11l ()1.J·'l • .-··z, . ' ,,:· .. ~--pr:_,. : ;11.;~1. . . J.A. MROSO , ~~:-., t • ,_ ) . . . ii. ;.er, · <- JUSTICE OF··APPEAL .1 - •:-I. certify ,bat this·is..:a true1oopy~of the on,,smai~~~ 1•J ...• ••.- r !; ~r ··: ;:.