DOMINIIC SOINGEI KIVUYO VS HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA IN THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MANYARA AT BABATI LAND CASE NO. 10 OF 2023 DOMINICK SOINGEI KIVUYO............................................... 1st PLAINTIFF LOSERIAN LIKIMBOIVOI MOLLEL @ CHEUSI.........................2nd PLAINTIFF PASIAN MELEMBUKI MOLLEL............................................... 3rd PLAINTIFF AGNESS GODFREY MOLLEL (Suing as administratrix of the estate of the late SHABAN HUSSEIN DOSA)..................................................... 4th PLAINTIFF VERSUS HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA.................................. 1st DEFENDANT SIMANJIRO DISTRICT COUNCIL......................................... 2nd DEFENDANT LOSOKONOI VILLAGE COUNCIL......................................... 3rd DEFENDANT OKUTU VILLAGE COUNCIL........................................ ........ 4th DEFENDANT KURUTHUM SHABAN DOSA (Administratrix of the estate of the late SHABAN HUSSEIN DOSA)................................................... 5th DEFENDANT GODFREY MKUMBO............................................................. 6™ DEFENDANT RUBEN GERARD................................................................. 7th DEFENDANT SELEMANI HUSSEIN MASHAKA...........................................8th DEFENDANT Page 1 of 44 I LIKAS KISEPH....................................................................9™ DEFENDANT SWALEHE SABU................................................................10™ DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 18th July & 07th August, 2024 KAMUZORA, J. The plaintiffs herein sued the defendants jointly and together for an assortment of reliefs as hereunder; i. A declaration that the plaintiffs herein are lawful owners of the disputed land/farms, ii. An order for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to withdraw their notices both oral and written requiring the plaintiffs to vacate the suit land leave the plaintiffs to use their respective land/farms, iii. A declaration that the eviction order and notices issued by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants both oral and written are null and void, iv. A declaration order restraining the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, their agents, representative or whoever under their instruction from interfering in anyhow with rightful enjoyment of the plaintiffs to the disputed land, v. Payment of special damages at the tune of TZS. 1,398,773,500/= as pleaded in paragraph 31, vi. General damages to be assessed by this honourable court, Page 2 of 44 vii. Costs of the suit to be borne by the defendants, viii. Any other reliefs this honourable court may deem fit and just to grant. In their plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded that, they are legal owners of the land located at Okutu village in Simanjiro district, Manyara region each occupying a number of acres making a total of 428 acres. In their pleadings and evidence, the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the suit land from the 5th to 10th defendants herein who also claimed to have legally acquired the land either by clearing virgin land or by being allocated land by the village authority. The 1st to 4th defendants challenged the plaintiffs' claim on account that the 5th to 10th defendants had never acquired good tittle over the suit land which they could pass to the plaintiffs. They claimed that there was illegal sale of the village land to the plaintiffs which was planned for grazing cattle. In his defence, the 6th defendant also raised a counter claim against the 1st to 4th defendants claiming for land specified as 54 acres and 7.5 acres locate at Okutu village within Simanjiro District in Manyara Region. However, the counterclaim was struck out for failure to meet the legal requirement as counter claim. As a matter of legal representation, Ms. Sara Lawena, learned Advocate represented all the Plaintiffs. On the defence side, Mr. Hans Page 3 of 44 Mmbando and Mr. Luis Marko Mwenempazi, State Attorneys represented the 1st to 4th defendants while Mr. Asante Hosea, learned Advocate represented the 5th, 7th, 8th and 10th defendants and Mr. Festo Jackson, learned Advocate represented the 6th and 9th defendants. The following were agreed issues to guide this court in its determination; 1. Whether, the 5th to l( fh defendants were allocated the suit land and had good title to pass to the plaintiffs. 2. Who is the rightful owner o f the suit property. 3. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to. In need to prove their claims and in response to the above issues, the plaintiffs' side paraded a total of 5 witnesses while the defence side paraded a total of 17 witnesses to prove their defence. After the closure of the hearing, the counsel for the parties opted to file closing submissions and the prayer was grated for them to file written closing submissions simultaneously. They both complied with the order and this court will consider their closing submissions while deliberating on the issues. Before deliberating on the issues above, I will in summary capture the evidence from both sides starting with the plaintiffs' evidence. Page 4 of 44 PW1, Dominick Soingei Kivuyo is the first plaintiff in this case. He testified that, he purchased 25 acres on 22/11/2013 at Okutu village from Kuruthumu Shaban (the 5th defendant herein) which is bordered by Roberth Olodi in the North, Peter Meshilieki in South, Senale Lesere in the East and Saiboku Sidiko in the West. That, in 2018 he also purchased 23 acres from Godfrey Mkumbo (6th defendant herein). That, the sale contract with Kuruthumu Shaban was executed at the village office and the sale process was witnessed by the then village chairman one Mdachi and members of land planning committee of the village who are Magret Marick, Ruben Gerard and Elias Mwaigusye. That, the sale contract with Godfrey Mkumbo was also executed at the village office and witnessed by the then village chairman one Richard Horomboi and the Village Executive Officer (VEO) one Neema who stamped the contract. That, after he purchased the land, he cleared the bush and started cultivating different crops like maize and beans until 2021 when he was issued a letter by the VEO one Neema requiring him to stop cultivating the farm for there was a conflict which they needed to resolve. That, more than 100 farmers were stopped from cultivating their farms and they complained thus, were called for the village meeting. That, the District Commissioner (DC) also attended the meeting and informed them that they intended to send a team to investigate those farms. That, they were later informed that they Page 5 of 44 were occupying the grazing land but since they had valid contracts, they were promised to be allocated with alternative land but never complied. That, in the same year in 2021, they received another letter from the VEO of Losokonoi village directing them to vacate from Losokonoi area within 30 days. That, they then decided to file case in court. PW1 prays for this court to declare him the lawful owner of the farm and order for compensation as he was using the farm to produce food for his family and cultivating crops for business and earning money to pay for children school fees. That, out of 48 acres, he could harvest 150 to 170 sacks/bags of maize and beans for one year earning TZS. 25 to 50 million per year. He contended that he suffered loss of TZS. 142,010,000/= from 2020 to 2023 for not cultivating the farm. When he was cross examined by defence counsel, PW1 testified that, he was the first one to clear and cultivate that farm. He is aware that the VEO Oromboi was terminated but do not know the reason. That, they were informed by the District Commissioner (DC), Ward Executive officer (WEO) and VEO that the area was a grazing land. That, he purchased the land in 2013 and 2018 and the dispute arose in 2020. That, the VEO from Losokonoi wrote a letter to PW1 because there was a dispute between the leaders of two villages; Okutu and Losokonoi. That, the DC agreed that the purchase was legal and the new village chairman Page 6 of 44 Pancras and VEO promised to give them alternative land. That, those who sold the land to PW1 informed him that they were allocated the same by the village. PW2, Loserian Likimboivo Mteri is the 2nd plaintiff in this case. He testified that he owns 25 acres farm located at Okutu village which he purchased from Kuruthumu Shaban Dosa (the 5th defendant herein) in 2014. That, the farm is bordered with Sifael Vicent in North, forest area in East, mount Lemelebo in South and Petro Meshilieki in West. That, sale was executed in the village office and approved by the village land committee of Okutu village. That, two members of the village land committee; Swalehe Sabu and Ruben participated in showing the boundaries. That, in 2015 he started to clear and cultivate crops like maize, beans and mung beans (choroko). That, he was selling the crops and some were used for food. That, between 2021 and 2022 different farmers received letters from Okutu village office and Nabelela ward office stopping them from cultivating their farms on account that they were grazing area. That, 2021 there was a fight between villagers and some people were beaten up and others died thus, they complained to the DC. That, in 2022, the DC called for the meeting to settle the dispute and after the meeting, they were asked to stop cultivating the grazing land. That, since their complaint was not considered, they decided to file a case in Page 7 of 44 court. PW2 prays for this court to declare him as the lawful owner of the land he purchased. He also prays for payment of TZS 64 million as loss suffered for failure to work in his farm during that period. He also prays for damages due to disturbance caused and costs of the case. On being cross examined, PW2 testified that there are two farms between his farm and the farm purchased by Raymond but they both purchased the farms from Kuruthumu. That, his farm is located at Nyota area in Okutu village. That, he sued Kuruthumu because is the one who sold the land to him. PW3, Pasian Loi Melembuki Model is the 3rd plaintiff herein. He testified that, in 2014, he and his late brother Godfrey Melembuki Mollel purchased land from Seleman Mashaka (the 8th defendant herein). That, the farm is measuring 1400 metres length and 700 metres width located at Okutu village Nyota area, Lemelebo hamlet. That, when they purchased the land, part of it was already cleared and with no trees but part of the land was still a forest. That, the village office approved the sale and the village chairman at Okutu one Sadick Mdachi confirmed to them that the land belonged to Seleman Mashaka. That, he showed to them the minutes which shows that they were allocated the land by Nabelela village. That, his land is bordered by the village land in North and East, the road in West and Dominick Petro and Roberth in South. Page 8 of 44 PW3 further testified that Mashaka showed them the documents from the District Land and Housing Tribunal (DLHT) which indicated that there was a dispute between Seleman Mashaka and pastoralists. That, the DLHT directed the village office to allocate another land to Mashaka and he was allocated the land which he sold to them. Mashaka informed them that his family members agreed to combine all family land sold the same to them. That, they cleared the land in 2014 and started cultivating it in 2015 by planting maize and beans and selling some of the crops and some were used for food. That, on 06/01/2021 they were issued a letter by Cheusi, the WEO of Nabelela stopping them from cultivating the farms. That, the fight erupted and people were fighting each. That, they later received a letter from the VEO of Losokonoi village one John directing them to stop all farming activities and vacate the land. That, in 2022, they received another letter from Losokonoi village reminding them to vacate the suit land. That they decided to complain to the DC who called for the village meeting. That, the DC appointed a committee to investigate the dispute and they both surrendered their purchase documents to the committee. That, they received no feedback hence, decided to file a case in court. PW3 also testified that he purchased another land, 50 acres located at Okutu village, Lemelebo, Nyota area from Ruben Gerard (the 7th Page 9 of 44 defendant) in 2017 and the same was witnessed by the VEO one Amit P Martin. That, the land is bordered by Paskali Francis in East, Mohamed Laizer in North, PW3's farm in South and Godfrey in West. That, land was a forest thus, he cleared 20 acres for agriculture cultivating different crops and the remained land was used for grazing his cattle; goat, sheep and cows. That, they were issued with letters from the WEO that they trespassed into the land belonging to Losokonoi village. That, after they received the letter, people started fighting, beating each other. That, they complained to the DC about the dispute. That, he stopped farming activities and moved the cows to another place but the goats are still there. PW3 prays for this court to find that he legally purchased the suit land and declare him the lawful owner. In alternative, he prays that, if the sale is found illegal, this court be pleased to order compensation for the purchase price as well as development done in the suit land plus all costs incurred in clearing the farm and cultivating it. He also prays for damage as he was unable to cultivate the farm for three years when he was asked to stop cultivation. That, he had suffered loss because he was harvesting 3 bags per acre equivalent to TZS 19 million for 20 acres. PW3 is open for re-allocation of alternative land if the suit land is planned for other use. He also prays for costs of the suit. Page 10 of 44 On being cross examined, PW3 testified that, in 2022 they were promised for re-allocation. The suit land was allocated to Mashaka between 1991/1992 as per the minutes for allocation who also joined the family land and sold the same to him. That, he was unable to use the suit land from 2021 to 2023. That, Ruben Gerad was a member of the land committee and was accused of illegal sale of the village land. That, they stopped using their land because of the letters issued by both villages; one letter from Okutu and two letters from Losokonoi village but their farms are not located at Losokonoi village. PW4, Agnes Godfrey Mollel is the wife of Godfrey Mollel who died in 2021 thus, appeared in administration capacity as the 4th plaintiff. She testified that her husband purchased 50 acres of land from Swalehe Sabu in 2018, and later 30 acres from the same person and then 25 acres from Lucas Joseph in 2014. That, the land is located at Okutu village, Nyota area. That, she came to know about the dispute after a letter was issued to her husband by the VEO. PW5, Jonas Godfrey Melembuki is the son of the late Godfrey Mollel. He testified that the farm belongs to his late father one Godfrey Melembuki Mollel and he was present at the time he purchased the same. That, in 2020 he was working with his father in the farm when the VEO, WEO, councillor, members of the village council and the village chairman Page 11 of 44 went there and asked them to stop farming activities and report at Nabelela village office. That, his father purchased 50 acres and then 30 acres of land from Swalehe Sabu in 2017 located at Okutu village Lemelebo hamlet at Nyota area and 25 acres from Lucas Joseph in 2014 located at Okutu village, Lemelebo halmet at Malapulapu area. That, he was together with his father when he purchased the land and the contract was executed at Okutu village office and witnessed by the village chairman Sadick Mdachi and the VEO one Martin Hamit who also confirmed that the land belonged Swalehe Sabu for there was a document showing that he was allocated the land by the village. That, at first, Joseph Lucas sold to them a farm located at Kambi ya Kati Okutu but the dispute arose thus, he decided to give them an alternative farm located at Malapulapu area in the same village of Okutu. That, they also verified the ownership at the village office and the VEO and the chairman verified that the land belonged to him. That, they were cultivating the farm and grazing cattle therein. That, the cows and goat are still kept in the same farms but they stopped cultivating the farms in 2021 after receiving the letters from Okutu village office and Losokonoi village office ordering them to vacate the land. PW5 claimed that, they have suffered loss for the period which they were unable to cultivate the farm. That, they were depending on the farms for food and school fees for some of the deceased's children Page 12 of 44 On being cross-examined, PW5 testified that the village agreed for them to maintain the cattle there. That, when purchasing the land, the farm at Malapulapu was cleared but other farms were not cleared as they were forests. After the testimony of PW5, the plaintiffs' case was closed. DW1, Emmanuel Njohoro Marite testified that he was village secretary in 1991 and in 1992 he was appointed the village executive officer of Nabelela until 1995. That, from 1990 to 1994 Nabelela had 8 hamlets; Nabelela centre, Soimartati, Engutoto, Naiborenderit, Ololosoito, Kwasik and Okutu but, in 1995 Okutu hamlet was declared a village. That, as VEO, he participated in village projects and plan for proper use of the village land. That, in compliance with the 1978 land use plan, they allocated land for agriculture and pastoralism. That, the land on the left side of the road from Nabelela to Mererani was planned for grazing while the land on the right side was planned for agriculture. That, land on the right side covers Ololosoito, Orkiapore, Lemelebo and Nyota. On being cross examined, DW1 testified that the land on the left side of the road was designated for farming and that include Okutu juu. That, Lemelebo was designated for grazing and the disputed land is located at Nyota. That, Losokonoi village is bordered with Okutu village and the disputed land is within Okutu and Losokonoi village. That, the hamlets within Okutu village designated for grazing are; Ololosoito, Page 13 of 44 Olkiriapore, Lemelebo and Nyota and the dispute is at Nyota and Lemelebo. That, the order to stop the farming was issued by Okutu and Losokonoi villages. DW1 also testified that the land was planned during operation vijiji from 1975 to 1978. That, when Okutu village was formed in 1995, Olkriapore, Lemelebo and Nyota areas were maintained for grazing while Ormoti and Okutu juu were maintained for farming. That, in 1991 there were people who were allocated land in Nabelela village at Engutoto and Okutu hamlet by then, but those who were allocated land at Okutu for agriculture, were allocated land at Ormoti and Narheko. DW1 did not know if there was any change in land use thereafter and he denied of any dispute between Nabelela village and Okutu village. DW2, Neema Johe Gelopta testified that, she has been working as the VEO of Okutu village since 2017 until now. That, in 2017 when she became the VEO at Okutu, there was land planned for grazing, farming and residence. That, the land was so planned way back when Okutu was still part of Nabelela village and she ensured the compliance with the plan. That, the suit land is within the land planned for grazing and it is bordered with Nabelela in South, Losokonoi in East, Landanai in North and Okutu village in West. That, the size of the grazing land is 15,584 Hectares. Page 14 of 44 DW2 further testified that one of the plaintiffs, Domonick Soingei Kivuyo went to her office on 22/11/2018 with Godfrey Mkumbo who sold the land to him. That, they wanted her to prepare a sale contract for the land. That, she asked Mkumbo about document but he had none but the village chairman Richard Olomboi confirmed to her that he knew Mkumbo's farm thus, she prepared a contract for them. That, in 2020, a dispute arose for the villagers were complaining on the illegal sale of the grazing land. That, she then discovered that Mkumbo and the village chairman conspired and lied to her that Mkumbo had a farm in that area. That, in 2021, she ordered all people who had trespassed into the grazing land to stop cultivating the land. That, the dispute was forwarded to the DC who called for the meeting on 23/02/2021. That, people complained against the village chairman one Richard Oromboi and other people including; Lazaro Daudi Urio, Vicent Said, Agnes Urio, Magreth Marick, Basilid Mroso, Sadick Mdachi, Swalehe Sabu, Ruben Gerard, Seleman Mashaka and Kultum Shaban Dosa for illegal sell of the grazing land. That, all members of the village council including the village chairman were terminated and the DC directed for investigation after he appointed a committee. That, the committee confirmed that the disputed land was part of the grazing land and those who sold the land were never allocated the said land by the village. The committee recommended legal Page 15 of 44 action against the people who illegally sold the land and the buyers were directed to seek refund of their money from them. DW2 also testified that, Seleman Mashaka was wrongly allocated land in the grazing area by the village and he sold the same to two different people who are Joseph Loi and Songoyo Loibanguti. That, when the village discovered that mistake, it allocated alternative land to those people. DW2 acknowledged land allocation done by Okutu village in 2010 to which 10 acres were allocated to each applicant and in 2019 to which 5 acres were allocated to each applicant. DW2 further testified that, when allocating land in 2010 and 2015, few villagers were wrongly allocated grazing land but after it was so discovered, they were re-allocated alternative land in different area at Ormoti and Okutu Juu but no one was allocated land at Lemelebo. That, the plaintiffs herein purchased grazing land and those who sold the land to them were not allocated the land by the village. That, those who were compensated are those who were allocated land by the village but wrongly allocated the grazing land. That, there are no houses in the grazing land except for temporary houses commonly known as 'ronjoo' built surrounding the grazing land and not within the grazing land. That, the disputed land is located at Nyota area bordered with Losokonoi and Lemelebo mountain. One part of the mountain is in Okutu village and Page 16 of 44 another part in Losokonoi village. She admitted to have not seen the minutes for 1997 meeting on the land use plan but insisted that, Okutu juu and Ormoti was planned for farming while Lemelebo was planned for grazing. DW2 prayed for this court's declaration that the land designated for grazing be maintained for that purpose and the plaintiffs be declared as trespassers and be ordered to pay costs and damages for disturbances. DW3, Paresoi Sinyo Peshuti is the farmer and pastoralist and he has been a member of the village council since 2019 until now. He testified that in 2021, there was land conflict between Okutu villagers on the claim that people invaded and cultivated the land designated for grazing. That, on 23/02/2021, the DC went to the village and called for village meeting and during the meeting; Swalehe Sabu, Lazaro Daudi Urio, Agres Urio, Kuruthumu Shaban Dosa, Seleman Hussein Mashaka Ruben Gerard, Magreth Marick Sadick Mdachi, Mohamed Laizer, Godfrey Mkumbo and Lucas Joseph were mentioned as people responsible for selling the grazing land. That, the villagers also complained against the village chairman one Richard Oromboi and the DC terminated the village chairman and all members of the village council. That, the suit land is located at Orkiapore, Lemelebo and Nyota at Madukani. That, on 06/05/2021, the District Executive Director (DED) of Simanjiro district called for the meeting and Page 17 of 44 villagers appointed a committee of 10 members, two from each hamlet to propose on the proper use of the village land and DW3 was among the appointed members of the committee. The minutes dated 06/05/2021 was admitted as exhibit DE2. That, after their appointment, the committee proposed land for grazing, farming and residence and sent their proposal to the village general assembly on 18/07/2021. That, in that meeting DW3 was appointed to chair the meeting for the chairman was terminated by that time. That, the committee proposed that the land designated for grazing by Nabelela village way back when Okutu was still a hamlet under Nabelela village, be maintained as grazing land referring to; Orkiapore, Lemilebo and Nyota area. The minutes dated 18/07/2021 was admitted as exhibit DE3. That, after discussion the meeting was adjourned and reconvened on 30/07/2021 for villagers' opinion over the proposal. That, the villagers agreed to the proposal of using the land plan that was introduced when Okutu was still part of Nabelela village. The minutes dated 30/07/2021 was admitted as exhibit DE4. DW3 prayed that since the villagers approved the prior plan that those places designated for grazing should be maintained as grazing areas, the status be so maintained. He also prayed for this court to declare those who sold the grazing land to be trespassers. Page 18 of 44 On being cross examined, DW3 testified that the trespass and sell of the grazing land was between 2017 to 2021. That, procedurally the village chairman stands as chairman to the village general assembly but since he was terminated, DW3 was appointed to chair the village general assembly. DW1 admitted to have no documents from Nabelela showing the plan for land use. DW4, John Joseph Kizua, has been working as VEO of Losokonoi village from 2022. He testified that he is aware of the prior set plan for land use in which; the grazing land was designated at Lemelebo A and Losokonoi A. That, the land plan for grazing land was gazetted as GN No. 597 on 07/10/2022 showing that the land at Losokonoi with the size of 27021.928 hectares was a grazing land bordered with Nabelela and Okutu on the west. That, the grazing land was surveyed by the land surveyor and a customary right of occupancy with No. 1 was issued on 19/12/2018. The customary right of occupancy dated 19/12/2018 was admitted as exhibit DE5. DW4 further testified that the dispute in court arose because the plaintiffs invaded the grazing land at Losokonoi. That, as VEO, he wrote a letter to them asking them to vacate the suit land which is located at Lemelebo and Losokonoi A which was planned for grazing and not farming. He therefore prayed for this court to declare the suit land as Page 19 of 44 grazing land and the plaintiffs be declared as trespassers and pay for costs of the case. On being cross examined, DW4 testified that the grazing land within Losokonoi village is located in two hamlets; Lemelebo A and Losokonoi A and bordered with Okutu village on the west. That, by the time of survey, Okutu village was still part of Nabelela village. That, Losokonoi village was registered on 28/02/1978 but registration certificate was issued on 03/07/2020. That, the map attached to the title refers to the grazing area and not the whole village. DW5, Marco Damiano Michael is the land planning officer at Simanjiro and acting head of land department of Simanjiro district. He testified that at Okutu and Losokonoi, they planned for proper land use in which, 15584 Hectares of land was designated as grazing land within Okutu village at Nyota area. That the grazing land at Okutu is bordered by Nabelela by South, Landanai village by east, Okutu by North and Okutu by west. That, the villagers came up with the plan during the village general assembly in considering their needs and as experts, they advised them on technical issues. That, after survey, they prepared the survey map and certificate approving the survey on the land use. That, the dispute arose before the certificate was registered by the ministry for Land thus, the registration is on hold. A copy of prepared customary right of Page 20 of 44 occupancy No. 02 dated 01/04/2022 was admitted as exhibit DE6. DW5 also testified that, at Losokonoi, they also surveyed the grazing land in which the map and the certificate of occupancy were issued and gazetted. Upon being cross examined, DW5 added that the dispute was within both villages, Okutu and Losokonoi. That, the survey process started in 2021 . DW6, Kuruthumu Shaban Dosa is the 5th defendant in this case. She testified that she sold the farm to Dominick Kivuyo and Loserian, 25 acres each. That, the farm she sold to them is her property located at Ndovu village, Nyota area bordered with Senare Lesere by West, Vicent Bahati by East, Sifael by North and Godfrey Mkumbo by South. She explained that, she acquired the suit land together with her husband Shaban Hussein in 1989. That, they applied and were allocated 500 acres of land by Nabelela village which is located at Ndovu, Nyota area. That, by that time, Ndovu was a hamlet within Nabelela village and Seleman Mashaka was the hamlet chairman of Ndovu, and was the one who showed them the allocated land. That, the land was a forest with trees thus, they cleared and cultivated part of the land. That, in 2004, her husband passed on thus, she was unable to continue developing the farm. That, in 2013, she discovered that she could not handle all children needs thus, she decided to sell part of land to Dominick and then to Loserian to cover for Page 21 of 44 family needs. That, the dispute arose in 2021 when she was informed by the plaintiffs that they were invaded by the Maasai pastoralist and beaten up. DW6 claimed to have followed the procedures and legally sold the land to the plaintiffs. She therefore prayed for this court to approve the sale because the current leaders are practicing tribalism as they do not want other tribes to own land in that area. On being cross examined, DW6 testified that she was born on 01/09/1974 and married in 1987. That, out of 500 acres allocated to them, they only cleared like 50 acres. She admitted to have not tendered the allocation documents and claimed to have sold 25 acres to Kivuyo in 2013 and 25 acres to Loserian Likimboivoi in 2014 and the sale contracts were signed by Sadick Mdachi who was the village chairman and Ruben was among the land committee members assigned to hand over the land to the buyers. DW7, Seleman Hussein Mashaka is the 8th defendant in this case. He testified that he sold his land to Pasian Melembuki Mollel (the 3rd plaintiff herein) and Godfrey Melembuki Mollel (the 4th plaintiff herein) and moved to Kondoa. That, before moving to Kondoa, between 1988 to 1990 he was residing at Ndovu hamlet doing farming activities and was also the hamlet chairman while Lazaro Daudi Urio was a hamlet secretary. That, they had land committee at hamlet level. That, Nyota area was used for Page 22 of 44 I farming since 1988 and it is bordered by Lemelobo, Ndovu and Okutu. That, areas which were designated for farming were Nyota, Kambi ya Simba, Okutu juu and Lemelebo. That, after Ndovu became the village in 1993, there was no change in the land use plan. That, he was also owning farm at the disputed area which he sold to other people and he denied selling the grazing land. Upon being cross examined, DW7 testified that he was the chairman of Ndovu hamlet in 1998 and participated in allocating land to villagers designated for farming. That, before 1993, Ndovu was under Nabelela village but it later became the village and DW7 was a member to the village council. That, Nyota and Malapulapu areas are within Ndovu hamlet but only Ormoti and Orkiriapore were designated for grazing. That, Godfrey Mkumbo was among who cleared the land before village allocation. DW7 added that, he was allocated 99 acres of land by Nabelela village in 1991 and 101 acres by Okutu village in 1988 and 1989. That, he cleared the land in 1993 and sold the land to Pasian Melembuki Mollel and Godfrey Melembuki Mollel and the sale agreements were maintained by the buyers. That, the sale was witnessed by members of the land committee; Elia Mwaibisa, Mage, Mohamed Laizer and Ruben Gerard. Page 23 of 44 That, he came to know about the dispute when he was summoned at Okutu village office and asked about his ownership documents. DW8, Ruben Gerard Hango is the 7th defendant herein. He testified that he sold 50 acres of land located at Okutu village, Ndovu hamlet at Nyota area to Pasian Loi. That, the land is bordered with Mohamed Issa Laizer by the North, Pasian by the South, Paskali Francis by the East and Godfrey Loi by West. That, he was allocated the land by Okutu village in 2004 and he sold it in 2017. That, there was no dispute until 2021 when he was informed of the fight between villagers who claimed that the land was part of Losokonoi village. DW7 insisted that he was legally owning the suit land and thus, the buyer be declared as legal owner of the same. On being cross examined, he testified that when he sold the land, he handled the documents to the buyer. That, he sold the land while he had already cleared part of it. DW9, Godfrey Mkumbo Shole is the 6th defendant herein. He testified that, he resides at Okutu village, Ndovu hamlet, Malapulapu street. That, in 1986 he was residing at Okotu and making charcoal at Nyota area which is within Ndovu hamlet in Okutu village. That, DW9's sold part of his farm, 23 acres to Domonick Soingei Kivuyo in 2018. That, the land is bordered with Paskali by East, teacher Shinsi, Pasian by North and Domonick's farm purchased from Kurthum. That, the village office Page 24 of 44 I was aware that he was the owner of that farm for he cleared the land himself before the village allocated land to villagers in 1993. That, at the time of land allocation, he and other people were found already occupying and using the land thus, they were left with the land they have already cleared. That, in 2021 he was informed by Dominick that he was stopped by Losokonoi village and asked to vacate the land. DW8 insisted that he legally sold the land to Dominick and he followed all the procedures thus, this court be pleased to declare the sale as legal. On being cross examined, DW9 testified that he cleared the virgin land in 1993 after he was motivated to stop making charcoal which caused deforestation. That, the land he cleared was 30.5 acres but sold 23 acres to Dominick Kivuyo and allowed him to cultivate the remained acres for consideration of sharing crops. That, since he cleared the land by himself, he had no any allocation document. DW10, Lucas Joseph Mbise is the 9th defendant in this case. He testified that he resides in Okutu village at Ndovu hamlet. That, in 2009, he sold 25 acres land located at Kambi ya Kati to Godfrey Mollel (the 4th plaintiff herein) but on 23/06/2014, he shifted Godfrey Mollel from Kambi ya Kati to Malapulapu street within Ndovu at Okutu because the first farm had dispute over boundaries. That, the land at Malapulapu was allocated to him by the village and it was also 25 acres bordered with canyon Page 25 of 44 (korongo) by South, Joseph Bura by East, Elias by North and Maromoboso by West. That, when giving alternative land to Godfrey Mollel, they involved the village office at Okutu; the VEO Matilda and members of the village land committee; Aloyce Dakaye, Mroso and Sifael Vicent. DW10 claimed that, Ndovu hamlet was designated for farming and not for grazing. That, currently there is land dispute between farmers and pastoralists because, the pastoralists are forcing for the land at Nyota area to become the grazing land. On being cross examined, DW10 testified that the land at Malapulapu was allocated to him by the village in 2004. That, the farming land is at Ndovu, Okutu and Lemelebo while the grazing area is at Orekiriapore and Ormoti. That, Ndovu was designated for farming and there are many houses there and more than 1000 peasant/farmers. DW11, Aloyce Dakay Bura testified that, Okutu became a village in 1993. That, from 1999 to 2004, he was the hamlet chairman of Ndovu and a member of the Okutu village council from 2004 to 2009. That, he was also a member to the land committee at village level from 1999 to 2004. That, in 2004 Lucas Joseph was allocated 25 acres of land by the village council in Ndovu hamlet at Malapulapu street within Okutu Village bordered by Elias Stephano on the North, Canyon on the South, Joseph Bura on the West and Simon Maromboso on the West. That, the dispute Page 26 of 44 over land owned by Lucas arose in 2021 but it was a dispute between pastoralist and farmers. Godfrey Mkumbo has farm at Ndovu, Malapulapu and Nyota as he cleared virgin land at Nyota. That, the land use plan was there before he became a leader and Nyota area in Ndovu hamlet was planned for agriculture while Orikieapori and Olmoti hamlet were designated for grazing. That, Ndovu, Lemelebo and Okutu juu have never been designated for grazing. That, the DC formed a committee as half of land in that village has conflicts for there is a claim that it is grazing land. That, during the village meeting, the villagers refused to turn their farms into grazing areas for they have already developed their land and built permanent houses. DW12, Bartazar John Sulle, is the land officer who was working at Simanjiro District Council before moving to Mbulu District Council. He testified that the dispute arose after the farmers from Okutu village complained to the DC that they were stopped by Okutu village to cultivate their farms. That, he was among the members of the committee appointed by the DC in 2021 to investigate the complaint and if the plan for proper use of land was complied with by the village. That, the committee discovered that the farmers purchased land from Okutu villagers but had no documents like minutes from the village evidencing the allocation of land to them. That, the sale agreements were witnessed Page 27 of 44 by the village chairman but there were no minute evidencing allocation to those villagers. That, among the people who were interrogated by the committee includes; Ruben Gerard, Kuruthum Shaban Dosa, Suleiman Hussein Mashaka, Swalehe Sabu, Ricard Horomboi and Sadick Mdachi. That, Richard Horomboi and Sadick Mdachi were village chairmen at different times and they participated in signing the sale agreements which did not follow the procedures. DW12 further testified that, they discovered that the allocation was not approved by the village general assembly which is responsible to approve the land use. That, the committee also discovered that since its registration in 1995, Okutu Village had no official plan for land use until 2021 when the dispute arose. That, the village decided to plan for proper land use by involving villagers. That during village general assembly, they appointed two representatives from each hamlet from a total of 5 hamlets who formed a committee for land use plan (Kamati ya mpango wa matumizi bora ya ardhi). That, after the committee was appointed, it cooperated with the district committee and proposed for the village land use. They allocated land for grazing, farming and residential houses and grazing land was planned at Nyota (ndovu) and Lemelebo. That, the village general assembly approved the plan. Page 28 of 44 DW12 further testified that they also investigated the ownership document of the farmers and discovered that the farmers purchased the land from Okutu villagers but no proof that they were legally allocated the land by the village. That, the committee discovered that the allocation or sale of land at Okutu village did not follow the required legal procedures. That, the sellers had no right over the land they sold and some of the documents were forged. That, the committee suggested to the DC that the plan for land use be complied with and by-laws be enacted to avoid further conflicts. That, they also proposed for legal action against those who abused their powers. The committee report was admitted as exhibit DE7. DW12 also testified that as land officer, he participated in the plan for proper land use. That, after 10 representative members were appointed, they went to the village with them to allocate land for different use and submitted their proposal to the village general assembly which approved the plan for proper use of the village land. On being cross examined, DW12 testified that the police are still investigating the matter after the committee completed its duty. That, when verifying ownership, they discovered that some of the documents were forged. That, Oromboi and Mdachi authorised sale without following procedures as the procedure for selling the village land requires the village Page 29 of 44 council to be involved and the approval comes from the VEO. That, the committee proposed Nyota and Lemelebo as grazing land. That, Okutu plan for proper land use was introduced in 2021 when the disputes arose. That, Nyota is a good area for grazing thus, the villagers opted for the same to be used for grazing during village general assembly. That, at the time the general assembly was convened, the chairman was suspended and district executive director was standing on behalf of the chairman as he has powers under the law. DW13, Swalehe Sabu Mohamed is the 10th defendant in this case. He testified that he sold 50 acres of land to Godfrey Mollel (the 4th plaintiff) located at Nyota area which is bordered by Pasian, Musa, Godfrey and Agness Urio. That, he was allocated 99 acres of land by Okutu village in 2004. That, he gave the ownership document to Godfrey Mollel after they signed the sale agreement at the village office. That, there are many people doing farming activities in the same area thus, the claim that it is grazing land is not true. Upon being cross examined, DW13 testified that he sold the land to Godfrey in 2017 and the sale was approved by the members of the village council; Agnes Orio, Aloyce Dakay and Mohamed Laizer and the VEO Martine Paulo Hamid. That, in 2001 to 2004 he was a leader at Okutu as a member of land committee and 2004 to 2018 he was a normal member Page 30 of 44 I of the village council. That, when the land was allocated to him, he was also a member of the committee but he applied and was allocated the land. That, grazing land was allocated long time ago at Orikriapore and Ormoti but Lemelebo, Ndovu and Okutuu Juu were planned for farming. That, the land planned for grazing is used for grazing until now and the land planned for farming is used for farming until now. DW14, Vicent Said Abraham, testified that when Okutu village started in 1993, he was selected a village chairman and served as such until 1999. That, Okutu village has five hamlets; Ndovu, Ormoti, Orkiaripore, Okutu juu and Lemelebo. That, in 1997 they designated areas for farming and areas for grazing. That, Ndovu, Okutu juu and Lemelebo were designated for farming and residential purposes while Ormoti and Orkiaripore, were designated for grazing. That, the land in dispute is located at Nyota area within Ndovu hamlet in Okutu village and it was designed for farming. That, Nyota area was used for farming even when Okutu was still a hamlet within Nabelela village. That, when Okutu became the village, he was appointed the village chairman and there were documents proving that they designed Nyota area as farming area but he has no access to official documents as he is retired. On being cross examined, DW14 testified that Ormoti and Orkiriapore are mostly occupied by pastoralists while Okutu Juu, Ndovu Page 31 of 44 and Lemelebo are mostly occupied by farmers. That, the planning also considered the number of people residing in the area and their activities. That, he attended the village meeting but he was not summoned by the committee formed by the DC. That, from 1993 to 1999, there was never any dispute between pastoralist and farmers. That, the village chairman Richard Oromboi was terminated together with the all village council members and Pakas Parikimalo Lekindeti was appointed by the DC. DW15, Sadick Athuman Mdachi testified that he was a village chairman of Okutu from 2009 to 2014. That, Nyota area is a farming land while Ormoti and Orkiapore are grazing land. That, there existed no dispute in these areas for the whole period he was a leader and even after he left the office as chairman. That, during his tenure, they allocated land to villagers in 2010 in three hamlets designated for farming; Ndovu, Lemelebo and Okuti Juu. That, the dispute started in 2021 when the leaders came with the opinion of turning the farming land to grazing land and villagers refused. He insisted that, the area has farms and permanent residential houses which are registered for residence. Upon being cross examined, DW12 testified that he signed the sale agreements between Seleman Mashaka and Pasian Loy and Godfrey Mollel as chairman. That, they had ownership documents and they involved members of the village council responsible for land/community Page 32 of 44 services. That, he was among the founders of the village thus, he knew all villagers. That, the land use was planned in 1997 in which, Orkiapore and Ormoti was planned for grazing while Ndovu, Okutu Juu and Lemelebo was planned for farming. That, the dispute arose because the pastoralists are invading the farming land intending to graze cattle therein. That, Godfrey Mkumbo was among the people who cleared the land before allocation because people were allowed to clear land to stop making charcoal and were acknowledged by the village as owners of the land they cleared. That, he was among the people who applied for land together with Mashaka in the mother village of Nabelela and they were all allocated land. That, he was among the people who were interrogated by the DC committee and he informed them that the disputed area was designated for farming and not grazing. That, he was also interrogated at the police station and released but never charged for any offence. DW16, Tehera Kone Landapa is a pastoralist and resident of Okutu village. He testified that, he is the chairman of Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM), Okutu Branch. That, the land in dispute is located at Nyota area Ndovu hamlet in Okutu village. That, the land designated for grazing is at Ormoti and Orikiriapore and the farming land is at Lemelebo, Ndovu and Okutu juu. That, the plan for land use of 2021 is yet to be implemented as villagers did not agree to the plan. That, as CCM Chairman, he wrote a Page 33 of 44 I letter to the party leaders about the conflicts. That, there is no any minutes proving the decision of the village general assembly. That, there are more than 1,000 people with permanent registered houses at the disputed area all doing farming activities and others are pastoralists. On being cross examined, he testified that he resides at Ormoti hamlet and part of Ormoti has farms while part of the land is used for grazing. That, the big part of land at Nyota area is already cleared and used for farming and big part of the land at Orikiaporte and Ormoti is used for grazing. That, he comes from pastoralist society and confirmed that they have never grazed cattle in areas designated for farming. That, there are few pastoralists at Nyota area but they take their cattle to the grazing area. DW17, Lazaro Daudi Orio testified that he was a secretary of Ndovu hamlet in 1989 which was under Nabelela village before Okutu village was formed. That, Okutu has five hamlets; Lemelebo, Okutu juu, Ndovu, Ormoti and Orikiriapore. That, when Okutu was formed in 1993, he was appointed the VEO of Okutu village in 1994 and worked in that position until 1996. That, in promoting people to do farming to prevent deforestation, they allowed farming activities at Ndovu, Lemelebo and Okutu juu. That, Ormoti and Orkiriapore were designated for grazing. That, when the dispute arose, the DC terminated the village leaders and Page 34 of 44 I appointed a committee for planning on the proper use of the village land but those people were not appointed by the villagers. That, the committee caused more chaos as they were taking people's land and selling it. That, there are permanent houses in the dispute area and people were asked to stop cultivating their farms. Upon being cross examined, DW17 testified that he was arrested and sent to the police station and interrogated. That, Godfrey Mkumbo was among the people who were asked to do farming and was the first person to clear land in that area. That, after members of the village council were terminated, the DED was leading as chairman and later, Pakas Parikimaro was appointed as a village chairman by the DC. Having analysed the evidence, let me turn to the determination of the issues in this case. The first issue is whether, the 5thto 10th defendants were allocated the suit land and have good title to pass to the plaintiffs. In this issue, the plaintiffs are bound to prove if the 5th to 10th defendants were allocated the suit land and they have good title to pass to the plaintiffs. There is contradicting evidence over the plan for proper land use before 2021. While some of the witnesses claimed that the prior land use plan designated the suit land as farming land, other witnesses claimed that the suit land was designated as grazing land. However, the evidence from both parties shows that before 2021 there was no official Page 35 of 44 land use plan set for Okutu village. The formality came in 2021 after the dispute arose. This is also supported with exhibits DE2, DE3 and DE4 which are minutes of the village general assembly which discussed and passed the land use plan for Okutu village in 2021. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs purchased the suit land from the 5th to 10th defendants. The question is whether, the 5th to 10th defendants legally acquired the suit land which they sold to the plaintiffs. In his evidence, the 1st plaintiff, Dominick Songei Kivuyo claimed to have purchased the suit land from the 5th and 6th defendants, the 2nd plaintiff one Loserian Likimboivo Mteri Mollel also claimed to have purchased the suit land from the 5th defendant. The 3rd plaintiff Pasian Melembuki Mollel claimed to have purchased the suit land from 7th and 8th defendants and the 4th defendant Agnes Godfrey Mollel who is the legal representative of Godfrey Melembuki Mollel claimed to have purchased the suit land from the 8th, 9th and 10th defendants. The 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants claimed to have been allocated the suit land by the village authority while the 6th defendant claimed to have cleared a virgin land in 1993. The evidence by 5th to 10th defendants was supported by the then village leaders; DW11, DW14, DW14, DW16 and DW17. From their evidence, DW11 one Aloyce Dakay Bura was the chairman of Ndovu Page 36 of 44 hamlet and a member of Okutu village land committee from 1999 to 2004 and then, a member of Okutu village council from 2004 to 2009. DW14 one Vicent Said Abraham was the first chairman of Okutu village from 1993 to 1999 while DW15, Sadick Athuman Mdachi was the village chairman of Okutu village from 2009 to 2014. DW16 Tehera Kone Landapa is the current chairman of the ruling party, CCM at Ndovu branch and DW17 Lazaro Orio was a secretary of Ndovu hamlet in 1989 and later appointed the VEO of Okutu village in 1994 to 1996. The above witnesses both admitted being aware of the allocation of land to the 5th to 10th defendants and some admitted being involved in executing the sale agreements for the suit land. However, their authority in participating in the land disposal was challenged by some of the defence witnesses paraded by the 1st to 4th defendants on account that the suit land is the village land owned by two villages Okutu and Losokonoi. They claimed that there was never any legal allocation of the village land to the 5th to 10th defendants hence no legal acquisition of the village land. Going through parties' evidence, neither the plaintiffs nor the 5th to 10th defendants or their witnesses were able to submit records of land allocation to the 5th to 10th defendants as so alleged except for oral account from the witnesses. The 1st to 4th defendants challenged the legality of the sale contracts signed by the village leaders for the land was Page 37 of 44 not legally allocated to people allegedly selling the same to the plaintiffs. They also presented the then and the current village leaders and land officers; DW1, DW2, DW3, DW5 and DW12. From their evidence, DW1 Emmanuel Njohoro Marite was the village secretary in 1991 and was appointed the VEO of Nabelela in 1992 to 1995. Thus, at the time Okutu village was formed, he was a leader. DW2 Neema Johe Gelopta is the current VEO of Okutu village after being positioned there in 2017. DW3, Paresoi Sinyo Peshuti is member of Okutu village council since 2019 while DW4 John Joseph Kizua is the current WEO of Losokonoi positioned so in 2022. DW5 Marco Damiano Michael is the land planning officer and acting head of the land department at Simanjiro and DW12, Bartazar John Sulle was the land officer who also participated as a member of the committee which investigated the land disputed at Okutu village. Their evidence shows that, the dispute arose between the farmers and pastoralists causing chaos to the village resulting interference from the DC who formed a committee to investigate the dispute. The committee report (exhibit DE7) shows that they discovered the sale of land which was blessed by some of the village leaders without following proper procedures. All leaders who took part in the sale of land to the plaintiffs were mentioned by some of the defence witnesses and in the investigation report (exhibit PE7) for contravening the procedure for Page 38 of 44 allocating or selling the village land. Thus, while I agree with the closing submission by the counsel for the 5th to 10th defendants that the village leaders were involved in the sale of the suit land, I do not agree with the contention that involvement of village leaders in disposing land is a conclusive proof that the land was legally sold to the plaintiffs. It was the duty of the 5th to 10th defendants to show that they acquired tittle which was legally passed to the plaintiffs by way of sale which was legally authorised by the village leaders. The contention by the plaintiff's counsel in her closing submission that the procedure in disposing land was proper, is not convincing. That could be applicable if the 5th to 10th defendants were able to demonstrate that they legally acquired the suit land. The case of Isaya Edward Vs. Mwajma Idd, Misc. Land Appeal No. 19 of 2021 (unreported), which was referred to by the plaintiffs' counsel is irrelevant to the circumstance of this case. In that case, the court was discussing the disposition of the legally acquired land as opposed to the case at hand where the 5th to 10th defendants disposed the land which they failed to prove that they legally acquired. Thus, following proper sale procedures by involving village leaders could not in itself, make the procedures in acquiring the suit land, valid. Basically, the village land allocation is proposed by the village council and approved by the village general assembly. It was expected for Page 39 of 44 the plaintiffs or the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants or their witnesses to submit to this court the minutes for the village general assembly or any other document indicating that they were allocated the suit land by the village. Since there is no such evidence and no reason was advanced for not submitting such evidence, this court is not satisfied on the manner the suit land was acquired by the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants. The counsel for the 5th to 10th defendants as well as the counsel for the plaintiffs need this court to rely on oral evidence of their witnesses that they legally acquired the suit land. In my view, in the circumstance where a certain fact is to be proved by written evidence, oral evidence cannot be preferred. In the matter at hand, there is no way the village general assembly could have convened and allocated village land to villagers without recording the minutes or without issuing allocation documents. Since the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants raised the fact that they were allocated suit land by the village council, such fact needed written proof therefore, I am not convinced to accept the oral account for something which must be proved with written evidence. The evidence that the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants were allocated land by the village is therefore, not maintainable. Page 40 of 44 I As regard to Godfrey Mkumbo, the 6th defendant who claimed to have cleared the virgin land, there is evidence from the 1st to 4th defendants' witness that the suit land was virgin land and was planned for grazing cattle. The 1st plaintiff also agreed in his evidence and during cross examination that he is the one who cleared the land sold to him by the 6th defendant for it was not used and was covered by bushes. The evidence by 6th defendant that he cleared the land which he sold to the 1st plaintiff contradicted the evidence of the 1st plaintiff who claimed that he was the one who cleared the bush after he purchased the land from Mkumbo. This also supports the evidence by the current village leaders that the land was never cleared as alleged by the 6th defendant. As opposed to the suggestion by the plaintiff's counsel in her closing submission, there is no proof that the 6th defendant was owning land under the deemed right of occupancy for long use of the suit land. The circumstance in the cited case of Ntiyahela Boneka Vs Kijiji cha Ujamaa Mutala, [1988] TLR is 156 and in Charles Mushatshi Vs. Nyamlaga village council & another, Land Case No. 8 of 2016 are different from the matter at hand. The 6th defendant in this case was unable to prove that he cleared the suit land and was in full occupation and use of the same before selling it to the 1st plaintiff. Page 41 of 44 L Similarly, the circumstance does not fall under the principle of adverse possession suggested by the counsel for the plaintiffs. The reason is the same that, there was no proof that the 6th defendant occupied and used the suit land for more than 12 years without interference. The evidence by the 1st plaintiff is clear that the land was still a forest not cleared when sold to him by the 6th defendant. Since the land was not used by the 6th defendant, he cannot claim the same under the umbrella of adverse possession. Generally, the circumstance under which the 5th to 10th defendants claimed to have acquired the suit land does not fall in the customary ownership as alleged by their counsel in his final submission. As well pointed above, the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants were unable to demonstrate with evidence that they were allocated the suit land. Similarly, the 6th defendant's evidence on clearing the bush and acquiring the suit land was not convincing. This makes this court to conclude that all the defendants have no title over the land they sold to the plaintiffs and for that reason, they have no right to dispose of the suit land. In that regard, the case cited by their counsel, Bakari Mhando Swanga Vs. Mzee Mohamed Shelukindo & others, Civil Appeal, is inapplicable to the circumstance of this case. The 5th to 10th defendants herein were Page 42 of 44 unable to prove customary right of occupancy which could give them right to land disposition. As opposed to the closing submission by the counsel for the plaintiffs, this court is not convinced that the 5th to 10th defendants followed the proper procedures in disposing land to the plaintiffs. Since there was no proof of allocation of the suit land to the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants, and since there was no proof that the 6th defendant cleared the land which he sold to the 1st plaintiff, this court agree with the submission by the counsel for the 1st to 4th defendants that, the 5th to 10th defendants had no good title which they could pass to the plaintiffs or any other person at the suit land. The decision in Farah Mohamed Vs. Fatuma Abdallah [1992] TLR 205 is therefore relevant to the matter at hand. Having said so, this court answers the first issue in negative that the 5th to 10th defendants had good title to pass to the plaintiffs. The second issue on who is the rightful owner of the suit land is now vividly clear. There is undisputable evidence that before being designated a village, Okutu was a hamlet within Nabelela village. The evidence also shows that, part of the suit land was under ownership of Nabelala village and after Okutu hamlet became a village, it became under ownership of Okutu Village. The evidence also shows that part of the suit land was owned by Losokonoi village. The suit land is part of the land Page 43 of 44 I registered for grazing, cutting across two villages; Okutu and Losokonoi. That was also supported by the customary right of occupancy submitted as exhibits DE5 and DE6. From evidence of 1st to 4th defendants' witnesses and the exhibits DE5 and DE6, this court is satisfied that the suit land is the property of Okutu and Losokonoi villages as so identified in those customary right of occupancy. On the reliefs to the parties, this court finds that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants but were able to prove their case against the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants. The suit land is hereby declared as the property of the two villages, Okutu and Losokonoi. Since the plaintiffs proved the case against the 5th to 10th defendants who also admitted to have sold the suit land to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated with alternative land or the current values of the purchased land by 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants. The costs of this suit shall also be borne by the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th defendants. DATED at BAB ATI this 07th Day of August, 2024. JUDGE Page 44 of 44