hatari manyasi nyerembe vs elias wegoro maunga 2013 tzhc 2020 30 august 2013
The evidence on record, including a witnessed sale agreement and official letter of ownership transfer, supports the respondent's claim. The appellant's acquisition story was not credible. There is no reason to fault the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- hatari manyasi nyerembe vs elias wegoro maunga 2013 tzhc 2020 30 august 2013
- Parties
- Appellant: Hatari Manyasi Nyerembe; Respondent: Elias Wegoro Maungo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 30 August 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, Sale of Land, Evidence Evaluation, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Hatari Manyasi Nyerembe
Appellant
Elias Wegoro Maungo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is the lawful owner of the disputed plot of land
- 2 Whether the lower tribunals properly evaluated the evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence on record, including a witnessed sale agreement and official letter of ownership transfer, supports the respondent's claim. The appellant's acquisition story was not credible. There is no reason to fault the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF MWANZA AT MWANZA LAND APPEAL No 27 OF 2010 Arising From the decision of Musoma District Land and Housing Tribunal Appeal No 79 of 2009 [Original Nyamrandira Ward Tribunal Land Application No 8 of HATARI MANYASI NYEREMBE..........................APPELLANT VERSUS ELIAS WEGORO MAUNGO............................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT MRUMA. J. This appeal involves the ownership of a plot of land in Chumwi Village, in Musoma District. Hatari Manyasi Nyerembe the Appellant herein sued Elias W egoro Maungo the Respondent herein in the Nyamrandira W a rd Tribunal for vacant possession Df plot No 250 at Chumwi Village at Nyam randilira W ard in Musoma District. The Appellant claimed that he purchased the suit land from one Phanuel Nduruma Majura but to his dismay the Respondent trespassed on his plot and he too claimed to have bought it from the same Phanuel Nduruma M ajura. The W ard Tribunal gave Judgment in favour of the Respondent with costs. It found that the Respondent was the legal owner of the suit land, that the Respondent legally bought it from the said Phanuel Nduruma M ajura. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the findings and orders of the W a rd Tribunal and appealed to the District Land and Housing Tribunal of Musoma. The District Tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on the ground that there was overwhelming evidence to the effect that the suit land belonged to the Respondent. From that judgment, the Appellant is appealing to this Court. The appellant has filed eight grounds of appeal all boiJing down to one main ground of complaint that the lower tribunals failed to analyse the evidence on record and hence arrived into a wrong conclusion that the suit land belongs to the Respondent. The evidence adduced before the W ard Tribunal established that the Respondent paid T.shs 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 /= for the suit land. He tendered in evidence a sale agreement which is witnessed and signed by five witnesses, three (3) witnesses namely Paustine Mwero, Mkama Lwikilo and Abiniel W egoko signed for the vendor, the Appellant while two witnesses W egoro Majura and Julius Msiba witnessed for the vendee M raga Nduruma. The Respondent also tendered a letter with reference No D LD/M U/731/Vol. 11/110 from the office of the District Executive Director of Musoma addressed to the Village Executive Officer of Chumwi Village informing him that ownership of suit plot has changed from the vendee to the Respondent. The Appellant didn't challenge this evidence. The District Tribunal accepted it. On the other hand, the Appellant’s story on how he acquired the suit land was doubted, and I think rightly so, by the District Tribunal. For instance, in his statement to the Tribunal, the Respondent told the W a rd Tribunal that he bought half an acre land “measured 80 metres long and 50 metres wide” form one Phanuel Nduruma M ajura, but the vendor Phanuel Nduruma Majura advised him to construct his house at the end corner of the said plot, the advise which he accepted. This “advise”, seem to tally and corroborate with the testimony of his witness Petro Kuyenga who told the Tribunal that Phanuel Nduruma divided his plot No 250 and sold it to three different persons including the Respondent and his own statement under cross-examination by the Tribunal in which he admitted that that the Respondent had a bigger part of Phanuel’s plot. This expresses why he was advised to construct his house at the side end of the disputed land. That was his portion. Thus, on the evidence on record I find no reason to fault the concurrent findings of the two tribunals below. I dismiss the a pjwcrt"w it r T c & s * fM " ' 4" ”, \ V'- v •- / JUDGE At M w a n ia A ; i ‘.L 's,r -</ 30‘h August, 2012 Date 3 0 /8 /2 0 1 2 Coram Hon. A.R. Mruma, J For Appellant Present in person For Respondent: Absent (Represented by Mr. Nasimire) B/C : L. Mtaki 5 Court: Judgment delivered this 3 0 th September, 201 2. <;RiC|hrc5f a p p e a l exp lained .— At M w a jiz ty »j v 30th August, 2012 6