19750804 TZHC Mwanza

IN THE NEON COUPT OF TANTANIA AT MWANZA ('(c. (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO 0 44 OF 1975 (From the decision of the district court of EUKOBA AT EUROPA in Civil Apeal No. 50 of 1975) Original Katoma Primary Court Civil Case No. 31 of 1973 CHRISANTMIJKE.3EZI o0 a a o 0 00 0............... a 0 00 , o ,TLPPELLANT 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 ye r sus WIDBARD BAIJUKYJ',...,000000000000000000000000000000000000000RESI?ONDENT -000- JUDGMSNT r'ALILA J. - In the Primary Court for Bukoha district at Katoma, the appellant CHRISANT MUKEBEZI sued his uncle the respondent WILBARD s/o ]3AIJUKYA claiming a number of things listed in his plaint0 These included a shambe alleged to be worth sh. 5001=, a house therein worth sh. 3001=, 'a bicycle worth sh. 250/=, a cow and her calf both worth sh, 200/= The plaint was silent as to the basis of this claim 0 HoWever in the course of the hearing, it became clear that the appel- lant was claiming these things as part of his inheritance of the property of his late grandfather one Baijukya0 The Primary Court allowed his claim in large part, in particular the poLtion of the shamba and the bicycle0 The respondent then successfully appealed to the district court at Bukoba. After setting out the facts and the background in detail, the district Magistrate found and held that the appellant had no right to claim inheritance of the property of his dead grandfather particularly his shamba when the grandfather had children of his own as in this case0 He found that on the death of his grandfather the clahad divided the property arnongs all the claimants0 The appellant was given part of the shamba left by his late fathor Mukebezi, but Paijukya's property passed to his direct descendants i,e0, his own sons with the respondent as the principal heir0 In the circumstances the district Magistrate he.d that the appellant had no right to claim any portion of his randfatherts shamba. He however allowed the appellantt S claim over the bicycle which was the property of his own father the late Mukebezi. The appellant then appealed against this decision- I agree with the decision of the district court. All that the appellant is claiming is an additional piece of shama from the part inherited by his uncle as a principal heir of the property of the late Baijukya. This he cannot do. He was given a portion of the shamba together with his brother Ferdinand left by their father Mukebezi. He has no business to go on and claim portions of the shamba left by his grand- father0 As the district Magistrate remarked, what the clan gave him is all that he is entitled to. It follows that his claim against his uncle was without merit. This appeal is dismissed with costs, MWANZ A. L. MFALILA 4.8., 197, JUDGE