eshie mossy mbaruku vs bi kungwa rajabu another 2017 tzca 167 9 march 2017

eshie mossy mbaruku vs bi kungwa rajabu another 2017 tzca 167 9 march 2017

The High Court erred in awarding compensation of Tshs. 1,000,000/= per year to the first respondent as it was not sought in the grounds of appeal and there was no cross-appeal. The counter-claim for refund and renovation costs was properly dismissed due to lack of evidence and lack of privity. The criminal court's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
eshie mossy mbaruku vs bi kungwa rajabu another 2017 tzca 167 9 march 2017
Parties
Appellant: Eshie Mossy Mbaruku; 1st Respondent: Bi Kungwa Rajabu; 2nd Respondent: Rehema Rajabu (as Administratrix of the Estate of the late Rajabu Mbaruku)
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
9 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal of Tanzania)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Ownership Dispute, Compensation, Counter Claim, Adverse Possession, Effect of Criminal Proceedings on Civil Matters
Source Language
english
Land Law Civil Procedure Ownership Dispute Compensation Counter Claim Adverse Possession Effect of Criminal Proceedings on Civil Matters

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eshie Mossy Mbaruku

Appellant

Bi Kungwa Rajabu

1st Respondent

Rehema Rajabu (as Administratrix of the Estate of the late Rajabu Mbaruku)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (court of Appeal of Tanzania)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding compensation of Tshs. 1,000,000/= per year to the first respondent without a cross-appeal or relief sought in the grounds of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in not entertaining the appellant's counter-claim for refund and renovation costs
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in not considering the District Court's order in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in awarding compensation of Tshs. 1,000,000/= per year to the first respondent as it was not sought in the grounds of appeal and there was no cross-appeal. The counter-claim for refund and renovation costs was properly dismissed due to lack of evidence and lack of privity. The criminal court's order was not binding on the civil land dispute. The doctrine of adverse possession was inapplicable as the appellant was a licensee and the statutory period had not elapsed.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • High Court's award of Tshs. 1,000,000/= per year to the first respondent set aside
  • No order as to costs