20060912 TZHC Dodoma
There are no good reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts that the land belongs to the respondent and the appellants have no right to occupy it.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20060912 TZHC Dodoma
- Parties
- Appellant: Fanuel Mgonela; Appellant: Patrick Jonas; Respondent: Yohana Cengonya
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment at High Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, Concurrent Findings, Appellate Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Fanuel Mgonela
Appellant
Patrick Jonas
Appellant
Yohana Cengonya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment at High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants have any legal right to occupy the disputed land after it was returned to the respondent
- 2 Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding ownership of the land were correct
Ratio Decidendi
There are no good reasons to disturb the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts that the land belongs to the respondent and the appellants have no right to occupy it.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA (PC) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2005 (Originating from Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2004 of Mpwapwa District Court. Original Civil Case No. 24 of 2003 of theKongwa Primary Court) 1. FANUEL MGONELA } 2. PATRICK JONAS ............ APPELLANTS Versus YOHANA CENGONYA ............... RESPONDENT 8/9/2006 & 12/9/2006: JUDGMENT: MASANCHE, J.: The two appellants, Fanuel Mgonela and Patrick Jonas, were sued in the Urban Primary Court of Kongwa in Civil Case No. 24/2003. They were sued by the present respondent, Yohana Lengonya. They lost the case. They. have appealed to the District Court of Kongwa, at Kongwa, and here, before Raphael OM, they have lost again. They now appeal to this Court. The two appellants are church elders of Anglican faith. Years back, in 1959, the respondent acquired a piece of land. Then,. the Anglican Church approached him asking him to allow them to build a ... -i church there. The church did no utilize the area well. So, in 1998, the church returned the area to the respondent. However, the appellants, being church elders, built what has been called a "kibanda", and they are running business in that "kibanda". All along, the two Courts have held that ~he area, really, belongs to the respondent. The church gave him back the area in 1998, and the appellants have built the "Banda" there, saying that it is the church which has built it. A thing which is not true. These are concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below. I, sitting as a third Court, cannot, really, have my own findings, unless I had good reasons. I do not have those good reasons. DODOMA 12th September 2006 Parties - Absent. ' I I,