19730811 TZHC Moshi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT. ARUSHA (pc) CIVIL APPEAL N0.5 OF 1973 (From original Civil Appeal No.143 of 1972 of the District Court of Kilimanjaro District at Moshi). FRANCIS NDELAONJAIVIA ...•.. ...... ....•... APPELLANT versus MARK NDELAONJAMA ••.•.........,............. . RESPONDENT .TTTT) aTI11N P Bramble, J. The appellant and the respondent are full brothers. Their father died and the appellant was granted letters of administration of the estate of the deceased. He declared in court the property for distribution and the respondent objected to the list claiming that a certain kihamba was his. The Primary Court after hearing evidence ruled that the respondent was the owner of the property. The District Court upheld thisdecision. This Is a second appeal. The substance of the grounds of appeal is - That the primary court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter because it came under the provisions of the Customary Leasehold (Enfranchisement) Act and the Land Tribunal should have decided it;.. That even if the primary court had juris- diction it could only uphold the objection and not declare who was the owner of the Land; That the procedure laid down by theKilimanjaro District Council for the purchase of land for publication through the District Council had not been followed and consequently the respondent did not prove that he had purchased the land. The appellant hiself said that they had referred the matter to the Land Reconciliation Board and the Board had directed that the matter be brought before the court. I know of no Land Reconciliation Board and can only interpret it as meaning the Customary Land Tribunal established under the Customary Leasehold S (Enfranchisement) Act. The urisdiction of the Tribunal extended to settling matters between landlords and tenants of land held under customary law and to decide whether any land became enfranchised by virtue of the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal rightly decided that the present dispute did not come within their jurisdiction. In hearing the objection which was based on claim - of ownership the court had to decide whether the land belonged to the deceased or the objector. What it decided was that the evidence proved that it belonged to the respondent and in saying no it purported to uphold the objection. I can see no fault in this. For the above reasons I dismiss the appeal with costs. e/JL MOSHI. (.C. E. BRAMBLE) 11/8/73 JUDGE.