19921030 TZHC Tanga

\ J AT TAI{GA p. C. CIVIL .A?:E:ti,LL no O 8 OF 1991 FROE rrrrn IlECI'SIOlT OI' TL;_; DlS'l'RICT CO-C;TLT OF· L:.TSE0'110 AT LUsROTO CIVIL AIT. J;L :NO. 7tJ/90 ORIGDiU, CIVIL CA~,; NO. 45/90 011' DOC:sI HUkA.RY CODRT liATIJ3U IDTII P.~~;JD.~IOKt1. • •••••••••••••••••• ; A.FFiiLlANT M.ARHMU ATIIUM.Aln ••eooooooooooooooe~oooo Rfi:SIO:N'JF!NT RUTAKAlJG;,A2- J. • s Tl:d.s is a land. dispute ootw3en blood. relc,tives. Tho e,:ppel~t, Ila ti bu Id.di Kwan;yoka. and the R0spon{t.ent, Maria.mu Atll1..1m.r:n:i. Kwanycaka, are the c"J.:rect descendants of ono j)h1;:1.11yoka 13es:tn.. .,•\mong the undisputecl children of Ji.lv,c.nyoka. :Desha are .Atht1Lln.11i, Iddi · and. Yus1.-1:fu. Athumam was the fat.her of Mariamu, whils Idcli was tb.t:: fo,ther of lfatibu. T'.L,.e t·wo diocl in th~ 198o 1 s but Yv.suft1 is still alive. :Jq_u:Llly not disputed is the fact that ene Paula :Besl:a is the·young brother of the said :Mwanyoka and is the one who inb.cri too. the wife and I ohiofdcm' of 1--:·wanyok.a when the latter died. T'..1c ll'J.sunclerstancling be-tween tll0 t-wo reln,tivos oE.nt:res en ib.e ewnersbip of a one-acre piece of l~nd situated at Nyas~ area within the District of Lushotoe Dach is lc:i,;ying claim of owmrsl:d.p on the .said pi0ce of land. By the time tl:s s1-ti. t which gave rise t e this a,ppe;:;.J. w2,s filed by tLe Respondent b:::fore t1.,::;; Dochi IrimE,r;7 Court of Lushoto, District in 1990, the std t le.nd was in tlie possession of the a:ppellant. It is the manner by wllic1. the appolknt came to posoosz tLis land which is the c:.::ntre of contrworry bct·ween the two. Hhereas the appclle.nt i:::; clciming tLa t th(:; su:L t land is his by right ~ving been given the snr110 by his late fo.tl::.er in 1970 and has been in continuous pessession of the same since then, t!::.e Respenclent is claiming tLo.t sl:-.o was given th(;; s::.x;i-:. by 1_._€r late fa,ther long before the appell8.nt 'WGS born and. she onJy lent it to hiG on req_usst in 1987, for c:u.ltivc.tion of seaso1111l crops • •••• /2 2 , At the trial each party calLcl 1-tl tncsEJes to support his •r her 01m -version. The Respondent c2,JJ.<c:c1 L::r own motL:.:;:i: (:Pt.2), tlleir:patcrnc,l vnclo (Hi.3 Yusu£u l(r:::nyoka.) and Pl:.¢ L.D::Lri Shemshu..a,a whose claimed relr-,tionsbi:p lii th tl:,::; G,ti. t par-ties -whicL tljo trial court 0;.1d tho first a:ppollc,te co:.::.:rt G"?-'0;:,tly ·relied. upon in thsir decisions, is J.+otly denied by th:; o.:i?J;,cllant. Th0 a:ppcllnnt called Paula JJosLD, (DW .2) and his brotheI"-in-la:w, DW .3 Sule;rnari.i :Mbelwa. In 2.. judf:;ement ·wr~icb. was base ct mainly o;.1 tlle trinl magistrates' O'Hn ,- opinions? surmises, assumptions, c..ncl evidence not fovnc_ on record, the tr:i.al cov.rt gave judgement ::_n t::,0 fa.vour of t:: R.::sponc.len"i who was the pl2j_ntiff before it. Tho attcm::_:;t of t1.c c,,P1,clknt t• upset thi::; juu.g0mcr1t on npp0a.l to tl:o D:Lstriot court of Lushoto -was unsuce8ssful. Relying on the ev:LC:I.er100 •f F1; .4 Sbemsht:!.Zo, and his untest0,~ clo..im to be the granclfatL::J: of' the two part:1.oG, tha Distr:i.ct coi::rt dismissed his ap}.)C,J_. J3otlc. courts below k:,lcl tbat., the cti..s:putccl lnnd was initially t'.<. y:ro:pc,rty of kv;~1.nyol-Q1 J3Gsl:.n whicL Lo c-;c-::vc to Athumani 1-,Wc'..l~rol~".. cl"i_:r-l:::12: his life t:i_u10 and the - it . la.tt,:;,~c g:,:vc /to the RGsponclent. D:cnco ti0 pres0nt appeal. In this 2,ppeal the appelbnt reversal of the concv..r:r'0nt firnJill{;;s of fc,ct as .:,-:.,1:Jo,s shoim on t:.:..a {.;rounds tki,t at the trial and particularly tho s:;v-:1.ccnce civen on l::is sicle -wr.s not given its due consideration. J::i.2. :relJutta.l, the B.es:ponc.ont has culled for the tlismissal o-l t:..-: : 2.~;-:I_:.:cu.l claim:i..nc: t:_,e,t tLe decisions i of the t·wo lewer courts were t:11ass2-:1.lab1o in tl:e li[)it of the truthful eviclence sbc adduced at tlco t1°fal. In deci·ding this appeal I ·will start by st&t:'.:c.c; t:'.:,s ln:w regara'.inc; tte duties 0.nd/or powc:rs of 2 second ~.i:-=:;_Jellc::te court when it is called upon to int8rfcr: ,2i tl.; •r :revic·w t:.,c co11cm-rent 0 • find:l.ngs of fact of tho two l0.-?81' cocr.:tso ·TL.claw, as I understand :i.t', is tha.t in such a sitt1.o,tion tb.0 second. appellate court sl:.ov.J.d us a 1-iise rule c,f Jrr-cejtice ·f ollo.-, the long 0 estabhS:ecl rule laid do-wn by st1J.X,:;:·ior courts 1,i t!lin OUT·jur:,.sdicti•n ••••• /3 3 to tt.a effect that tl:..8 court sl::.o:t.:lG. not disturb concurrc1:t findings of fae;ts 'Lu1loss it is cle2.x·ly sb.ow'.!1 that tLere h,.,s be<m u misapprehensj_on of the ,3yj_6,0nce, a miscarriag(:; of justj_ce .or viol;;1,tion of some :princil)le of le:,,; or }?:r_2,ctices see C:01u·t of Ap:p:s:al of Ti~nznn:La decisio'.n JAPJTALA T/A ;.:;.:;1;~,.L'_;_t,,;.L IW'IEL (198Q) TLR.31. Doc:s the present ,\p:;:::cJ. cane withl.11 tl::.0 ambit of this rule so ·as to justify tLis court's ir-2.terv0ntion? AftBj:· ca:cdLilJ.J;· £;Oil;§ ov·0r the sv:i. ~.encs of ths paJ:·tic.f> a,s contained in th3 :r>ecord. of :p:r-oceed.ings of t:,_:,_, tri;:,_l cou:r·t, ,lr:;,::, tL.s ju6.g0rr.ents ,.f tL.c: lows,~ courts I am convinced. tl:,z,t t:.01~a w;:;,s a m::.s2,p]_)rzL0nsion of tbs -c:YicJ.cmcc by both courts 2c:1c. ;.:: violut:i.o:c. of a ::;:z-::.nci:pls ,ef la:w by the first ar:;_:i3llate C01..Tt i.n tl:.::;_t it failJd, in e:ffoot, to cons:i.i:.sr F,l).C. weigh the wl:010 GViCi..(;;l;.OC 011 r0co10. 8,ll(L ra:,-,.c::. at its own f:Lno.ri.gs of fr.ct. This WG.s not clone despi t0 the; fr.ct tk,t the 2pJ_x:ll2-11t in Lis grounds of 2j_)yJD.l ):.,.,i:. com;;lai:nccl tJ1.:.,t t1e trial cou:rt hGd. fciL,0. to :properly 2.P:r•rc.o,:,.so th8 G"iH. cfonoo bc:fo1':; it e.nd furtlK~f.:' that it L,,,.d not considorcC: is o.-wn evj_Cc.nv) c:.nc~ tL:it of his wi tnsss,;.;;s.. :n dismissing tb.e a}.):;c;,J. of tLc 2-prc;lle.nt, tJ:.:::, J)istx·ict couxt onJ.r consicla:n..:d. nncl. accept,:)c_ .::,s true the cv:i.c1.0EcG of !Ti .4. As it WGi: hole::. by the Com t of .l.lJ:;c.,,l foJ~ I,;z,,stcri: Afrj.cr, in the ca,se of J.2.Il. HJmYA.v. R. (1957) 2~:f:.. o,1~6, on a first aprs~='-1, the evid.enco must be treated as a whole to ,:;, fresL 2,nd cxl:.2.ustive scruti:n;y-, r:,s i.f it w2,s a re-hearii°J[:; p,11cl fr,iL:ro to cl.o so is an er-.L'or of b;w. It is therefore incumbent upon this court to remec1y these err'.ors as t~1oy ap;_)arently causec. r, failv.re of justice. T.Lc cc,sc •f tb.e plaintiff' (now l~es.p •nd.cnt) wns t;~,.:: t sLs was givon t}.0 suit land 'by her fr.thcr, Al tLough in her ovid.ence she never sts,teC wt,on hsr f2.thor g;::;.ve L .. r tLe sc,id land (a.ncl indeed all her ·wi tnosses -who supportGc. :.,er in L0r clo;l.im were equally silent 011 tlJ.s issue), she bud on 16/7 /90, r1b.sn stating ths nature · .en b:;1, cl2im, told the. trial 001,,1.r-t t: 2ct t1is w.1s in 1965. 0 T'.cis sta toment hr,cl led t!::..e trial court to frame tl:.o first issw to be whetl1:0r tLc plaintiff had been in occupation of the sui tl&nd since 1965. •••.. /4 1.n b.sr evidence the fa,sl)On,:~cr2.t testified thz.·t in 1987 the appel1,-:-.nt appro::,cb.o(. l:E:I and re,g_uested to ·00 Lnt tLc suit lcnc'i. to plant boons tbor0011~ Lz.ving r-eg<",:tcl to thd.r ::.0L~tions1Jip sLG z:. coeclecl to the request. The Al)pello.nt used t:_:,:. :Jt.1:i.tl nd for tln:<oG consecutive ye2,rs until 1950 ·when he allegedly :;_:ilantc;,T c:.ssz,v plants, :)J.u.s -wcJ.ttle and. eucalyptus trees. lihen she req_·,;_cstco. l1im to remove tl..cric plants and _he rGfuscc"'. stc -went to loclgc b:.;r cofil:;J..:c,.ints to 2, tc11-ccll lc:_:;_d.er. Sh0 never rsv(:;c.L.;d the iclenti ty of tlx: s~:Ld kad.er. L.11 t~,.c ss.r;,\:J sbe toll:. tb.6 tr-~.2.l oov.:rt ti"2.t tho saj_d_ tcr}.cell le,:,,clor info:rrncC, ::.c:;:• tLnt the cppolJ,,)1t had told him tLc..t :.:.,::; -;:,,s not c;oing to rc}.;;-::s,::, tl:.G suit land but 1.e 1w.nte:;d to buy it. TJ.con tL.o 1:tcr:.;pondent ::;cnt beck the ten-celJ. 18,.:clcr to tho oppcllo.:c-'t -:::;_tL ,. rnessa 0E: t;J_t if the np::,.10llc,nt Acco:i:-c.1.ing to the Respondent~ she n..:;v0r s2.-w tho c:,J?:P8l1::·.nt :::end she thsn dcciq_:-::;c;_ to sell th0 suit J.u1c". to one Idc"!.i S0J.cm:},11i. The Responu.0:1t en;phutiCG,lly told. tLe · t:r-:' :,7. CO'.J.rt tL:.t st.., clec:i.c2ocl to sell tl·:.o J:!;_1~~D. because the ap;p:::}Jt~:ni;_ c'j_c:_ not contnct he~:· "bo b_uy it. As the 2cpi:,clJ.ant could not [;i-..r,:: 1.,;_p j_)OF.;sosd.on of tl.:cc : v.5.t 1::..~nd, she deciclc6. to sue for- its roeovcr:·. Acco:i:'c,3.11{; to l:0:;.: sJ:.,G sol.<l., it in ~br1;10::cy_, 19..fil. P1:;,e<;---,, Ts'-.,ra.,,._,,;.,1· (Res·,~,on J.·.i.t • .L.1.Q.---V~ r 'l•e·...,t 1 '-4 .1..:. 1 s ,0·1ot:··:.,·•) ~-"'a·, ,:,r_-, 3 y,,,,,,.r.~, ~, ..,,,.,nvo1,·-, --~ .....0 - u.•J. £,.e -'-'i.Qi..:J..l.i. l.',r-,c.:•. tJ ~, both W!:ctified to the effect tl::.z-t ·i;~;,:.; svi tlc::,nci ·was t:~~ pioporty of the I/.G sponc:0nt -wbich shs ·w.-:.s r~:;;·en ".)s· Lsr fo, tl:.er o FL-'1- And.ri SbemsJ.•uzc' s evi(Lencc ,;;.:_s of th, t eff.,;ct, b-::t :.c w0nt fu.:rtJ~_uJ: ::i.n l:.:i.c ~Jie!. to be;;.r out the Responclent in !ler cJ.c;.1:1 of Ols;ne:rsbilJ O'r:.;r tl::.-::.. nut land. PF.4 wt.o gava Lis c,ge as 60 :;co ..-:c'S in 1990 told. tJ_;G tri;:;,_l court th.:!.t' tL.s -"";.l);cllcnt and. the Rsspo;.1cc0j.l"G t1;.:;r;:;. his ;:;:;_ ,~x. . ccL.ild.:reno 0 L:e never ela0or,::tec't no:r J:licl the tr:L'.,J. co:::rt ts.kc J.1;;_:r tr:-o~·:blG to inquire :i.nto tLe r....s.ture of tLc :;:-cJ.: t:i.onship 'Jetwccr l:-.im c,ne_ the two fa:;;t:i.es. ,After so 'bolc11y assc:;.·ii:i.ng, I'1io4 fost:' i~_;:;,:,;. t;.;.:Jt be le.new ve:1..,.,r 1-1clJ. the sui tland as >0 too o-wns e. sl:o.mbc. 11J2icL oo:rd.ers ., ----·-·-~--------- ~...E_ui tLlJCi.o 2::,e tt.en averred t: ,.. t tL-~ $LU tL-,ncl is t:__e pr·O}:-"'€rty 5 of tho Respondent as ·,sbe Lad iTu.IeJ:i. tec".. it from her deceased father. He then ·went on to state tbat in _,rune, 1990 tha Rcsroµdent approachec:.. M. m a:c.d rsq_t,Ested him to go one. tell ths appellant to 11l'6move trees and c2,~s:r-r2, plants fran the sham1J2, wl:d.. cL she b.acl tempor~r:i..ly lent him"~ Le clicl s~. On a,pproachin::; t:..G appellant~ the latter reqwsted him to go r,:nd.. c,,sk tLe Respondent to sell tLc shai;;"oa to tj_m if she was selli!lf; j_t cheaply. I:Ie relayed t'. . 0 message to tLo Respondent but he t:ct8r heard ttz,t she had sole tbe s;i tland to c.notJ,.3r :person9 The ap:pellant t•lc.". the tr:Lc1,J. co1.,1.:rt tl:n.t tbe suit lanc.. -was his ewn :propert;f as it was given to h:i..a by his father i:n 1970 and had been in effective occu.pation of t:.,c S3l"t6 to de,tc. L:e "Wc~s never even cress-examined by the Plain.tiff/Respondent. Tllc appellant call-sd ·two w:. t:'13ss~,s: :DW .2 l'aula Jest.a ( the unclis:i;r:..:teci.. young brother of t-wo,nJrolrz, :3Gs:.:. a) and J:T.3 Suleinw,ru. :t.'lbeh-w,. At tL0 time of testify:i.ng on 10/C/50, botL were_ 83 e,11:, G9 yeaxs old res:pcctivel;t. Tbc most importa:i1t aspect of t1eir ev-:1. ..::ence is that they told t>.8 hist'iry of tbe c.is;;ut00.. kncl. TLis w2s tl.,.2.t the same was 1:ioU[;L.t by :Lwanyoka 3eshc in 1:)28 from: one Kbih: I.gogwo in excba.ng-e for two goc., ts. ..A.fter purchc,sing t::c sui tland the sa~. c1. }1:wanyoka. gave it to l:,j_~ son Iddi K-wanyol(:;3, 9 wLo :i..n t1..1.rn gave it to his son, Ila ti bu Iclcl:L Kwanyoka, tbe prer;ent ::•,ppcJ.lant. It is not insignificant to stnte here thc.,t the RespondBnt never cr•ss-exan1ined. m;.3 at all wru. le she c,sk..;;d :ow.2 only one q1..1..::;st:i.011 relating to t::. . e m.,1mher of people w}... o have resided a.t the :-::.:-cc,. 1-;l.ere the sui. t la:1d is si tuafod. the bj.stor;r of ttc parties. Tb.is j_s haw ho put its 1 'Euu ndio mwisho wa ushalD. di wa pande zote rnbili katika sLau:ri hili o L:i.storic. ya itl<:oo We.: i·m.c",.;:,.a·wa katika shauri hili ni kwsmba ldlitol.r.a ld'..c:.:tzi clla I-'.zee JJesba 9 Nwanyol<c:. llosl~a. K·wa12_yoka Bss:.:a ~ alikuwn na mdor;o wal;:e___c:E~~:,aye ni }Jnir ~SJE~l?;:.~~~cl: alias 13esha. ITivyo ndi,i, kuser:,u mare:.enn1l-,;,~~ Besl:a alih.'U'Wa na ·watoto wa ldume -wate,tt~ kr.JiW., :T walivyota~wa ba,po jtii:1 uncl.erlining is m5.110J 6 While it is not disputed t:.,2,t tl1,:, parties to t:d.s rcj_)pec,l a.re -the grand. chilc1.:ccn of ~i-wanyoka J36sl.12, u,nd. that Illi .2 and. 1,.,:_wr1n;-;,oka nesha .-;e:r-e full brotte:r·s 1 the eviclencc on roco:ix"'c doos 11ot mention of Lzee Besha., !fore of t;_,c seven wi tncsses who tcstj_f5_ee. in te c,:s,3 evs:t montiqnec this 1'1Jfzc0 :&-"°sha 11 o · ::Gq_ually tant,,J.::_zin0 is tloe hoJ.cl;i.ng that 11:-v;anyokn Ilesha wn.s tbe elder brother of }\;-.4 iuniri ShemsLuza wham tbe trial maeistrate ~ out of the bh:-.es, :r'..2J.:t,) .P-.m:i.r Shemshuza t ,J.i2,s :.3esha 11 • 0 There is no iota of eviC::ence on reco:cc:t to su.st::dn tJ.j_,s holding. Nor diJ. even F1, .4 himself tell t>e cov.x·t in his ev:i.t½:ne8 th2.t he -we.s the b1~othe1~ of ~:wanyoka )Jes: o.... Orw is t}.:erefo:re 10ft -wandering -where tL;=; ;ood_ mc:gistra te got t.s cvictence on which 1.,8 pegged tl:ese finc1.;i.:.-igs uU.cb. unfortunately iiul,.::i:,.nceo. him and t'..:..e D:Lf:trj_ct !{ag:i_stra.te on appec1,l, to decicTe tll0 02,se against th:.:; 2.p:;;:,;;;lJcni. In so doing ·both courts below v1e::;:s i;.1 1n>ec:c!, of the rule ot evidence w: iC:.i requi:res the com·t to d_,_;;ciJ.e tJ::..e case 1:J-:fore it i-_n the basis of tL.8 evidence rGce:Lvcc'. by it d.ux-ing tLe L,,e.::c:1.ne, of tl:e oaseo Rv.J.0 7 of the I•>gistratos 1 Courts (11.ulss of .;VL.e11ce in Prime,ry Cou:r·ts) li.egulations, 1964 reads a In deciding all Cf;sus, -c;.o court must 11 o onfine it se H to t:. c facts wL:: ch are proved in the case a;.'!c~ tl o mt;, t te rs it is deemed to know m.~ n1a: ;,resume under 7 rules 3 and 4o A Court must not te,ke into account arzy- f~_,ct :reL,_ting to tbe case w;Jiob it hears o,xi; of tl::e court except facts learnt in t1.s pNsonce of tb.G parties dt1ring a. proper visj_ t to any land. or pm-operty" concerood in the case 11 • In rejecting tbe claim •f tLo appellant that tL;:; J.and. in dispute "i)0longed to his father· uho in turn La.cl got i't fran his fathor (lt-w;;".llyoka Besba) tbe 1.32.rnsd tr:'_c:;_l magj_st:r·c~tc held: 11Kiutaratibu katika k s:i. yoyete iwe ya m2,d11:i. au ya jinai, mdai au mle,lcunikaji ka.tika kcs:L 1'-,atika l\\atak...,.Hl y2,. l'lw2J1~7,o inaendeshwa na moLi au mlalamil:.aji no. k.::,t::k.s hali hiyo dhima ;;·a kuthibi tis1.a k:si a,ti_ lmtotlibi tisl,a kesi inakuwa ni jukumu b, :mnc.ohusiku ya"'m mcla:i. - •1-:-, a.v. ml a 1aJl11 • • au i.D,J1 · ffiC:.[,.•.11,_ 'n•' .-,- at. rr,s~. 1 h1't-,k~ _," --• ..... --'-l';ao JF.-t•:l--~ ~cs -·-~'-<-, l:.esi hii jambo lu kwe,11.l',e. l,~ kustangaza n.i.. kuamba »t.2 Faula TI&sha na D:i.3 Suleiman lb0h:c, 112.mceleza arcllij_ bii ilinunulj_w.:,, h-w.. malipo ya rnbuzi w2,wili kutoka kwa 1,~bilu r,_.gogwc. ldE:i:wo. mwenye11e a,r;1.baye nd:i.ye m-weeye jukumu le\ lmtetea kesi ya.ke •••••. /7 7 hakuzungumzia jambo 12, namna, hiyo aidh.3, k:;,tiJ:r..a · us1-alidi wahe au 1'.:o.til:t, hojQ. Rivyo ki..uic; dhan:i. la,;amba s1...1.ala. 12, ar-dl1i hii ilinunuJ.i-:;a kv.toka kw<>, Kbilu 10go61,;o 11:L uzushi wa r11D..sLa],ic:5. Lawa. wawili ''. What tJ.:.is means~ in short, is tl:io.t, cdter th8 good, tri.,l lli2,gistrate bnd stated generally th0 18:w on tLc 1n.:rclen of proof i:a both criminal and civil cases, he proceeded to :r:-:ijsct sUilllI,ariJ.y t::.s evidence of DW.2 ancl rn;o3 to the effect tL,,t t].e suitl,.,.nii had bGen boug~t by Mwan:Toka. JJesha in 1928 frQ;.·, one J:cfoilu 1-.'.Gogwe in exc.'..:i.a.it,o foi· two go2,ts, ES a f;;,brica.tion bec:11).SG t!te c.ppelJant novc:r so stated in his own oral evidcnc0. With (:iie respect tbe tr5.:,.l rna2,istrate w.;-;,s wronc in 1is approach u.nd. he tot,illJ misdirectei:-l hiu5clf in law. T1i10 law is tl1£:.t if a party to c:. ccoo v10.nts tLs court to believe in tLc sxistc1,.ce of a c0rta.in frict the 7Ju:rclcm of : ;,.: ;-. oof' Ees on that party.. The law does not roquirn t~.ect te _proof of tLis shovJ.d. come fJ:om tl.e mouth of tLo, part;;· bin.sclf/hoi,solf. Tbe party ·dll {j.scLarge tl:is bu.1°den b;f lJI•oclucing rcl-,,n:,n-c cv:L::.ence to that effect. Such evidence cz:,n come. fran the mo-L,tL oi tL~ :party himself, or by th,3 party prod.ucinc u.ocuriientar;;r or/ ot}.·,_2:c· admissible ovicl0nce l,imself or tbrough a cor:i:(:etont witness calkc:. to t•astify on his b;:;;:2,lf!) suet otLer witness ccn testify orally in proof a fact wh:i.c;J. a party wishes il court to 1:>e heve in :i. ts existence. ' This is wl'.:.£,,,t :Dii .2 2.ncl m; .3 dido 'E:l.u lc.w c.oes not roqt:.:'_re the party to pi oc~1ic0 t!.~at ovidence H:,,s, J.·P or ].)ElJJsoru::.J.l;;r 1x:.fore it is 0 accepted 2,nd 2,ctsd upon by the cov:;:t. If it wer-:; so tl:on il:ere wov.J.C. Lc:ve been no need to c2,11 -w:L tnssses othe:r than t::18 parties to ths cass t:.emselvcs. l'.oreov,n.' t>c r:;ood magistre,te is guilty of cloubls sto..ncJ.c.rds in bis tra;:;,tmcnt of tLe wi tn:,ss::s. If his rejection o:i: tLe evi de nc~: of D'ki. 2 ancl rn: o3 en tl::::: erotmds fiven was legally sustainable, tbem he ov.ght to have rej0cted in toto thz_.,evi'cJ.cnce of HJ.4, for whc:;,t t:.:.is witness sto,tcct o,11e. we,s wholly embracec'. b;f ancl influencsd him -wci,2 nevGr even alluded. to by the plaintiff. Indeed, tl:.e pla.inti:.U ns:;ver mentioned. for once the -----na;ne of J;rni.ri Shemshuza in her ev:i.c';.e:ncc let alone telling the court tl:iat Hi .4 was tLeir pe,te:rTcc':J. (_;j'.'2,nc.fc, tbJr. Tl;.is shorn tLat tl:e tr:i.e.l lilD,Cj_strate ,'elibera.tcl; twistGc1. the law to stti.t his ~wn comronie1ice in deciding t~e c2s0 • • • 0 •• • /8 A 8 ..;, Ft.1.rthe;rmorc in trying to j'--'..Stify Lb bonch"tSion t:::::.t D1: .2 and Dt o3 l;..ad. concoctecl tb.o cvic1ence l:,c Jctti:3oi:1cn:l-:_ the L::.:v: to the winds • and ent;:::red. :i_nto the r.ealms of snL:;_r3,:;s ,:\r1{~ i:)m;jc::ctLTGS 113- holding I that in 1928, dv.e reg'.""~d being hGCi to tho kVGl of c1o-velopqi.ent then there was no s curdi ty ~f land to war:ra.:ct anyb'ody bujinc L.nd.. f 01· in · t110 goats. According to him l,:nt UciS so c·.burrch,Jit c::rr body/_need of it coulc:. sr.:.b any area and. occu;;~·· it freol:yo\ I. have sc,:nnod the whole evidence on .record. but I !.;:i;ve failed i\ t::c,.~ce cvsn a scintilla of it te support this bo~_(: a,sse::i:tion of his., If then there is any".'.!110 who c•ncocted evic.lc;:.00 :i.n favour of t>.c 1:ia:rtics to tl:J.s 2-l)lXo::o.l, {·t is the tria.l mc::-e,:Lst:;.'i:':to 1-,::,0 d.id so :Ln favour of the RosponC.cnt. Ei2virig.carofully cono tli:;201.1.gh ths ev:i.ci.e1~c8 on record, not forgettj_ng the naked. fact t1:rt nei t1,c1~ th;-:; EesponCcnt nor the magistro,te Liu self' ever put a si:r1c)s a question to t'.}.: s~ two wi tnessos to test tbeir crcdibiEt:-· or the veracity of v,Lo:'t they had d.eposod. to, I am s&tisficcl t~., t t::.cir evidence 11,_:s wronc;ly rej,,;ctod. J;_s t:eir evidence staEd.s uncl.o,1long8c:L and. m10ontradicted and. there is netting 6n rGcor6. t• :L:;::c:.icats even to tl;n :.::lightest degTee tL2, t by tbeir demeanour Ol.' i::w,,n..YJ.o:r in tLe -wi trK.:sr;; box ttey ware unwortl,. of credence, the trL,l m2,c;::.strate errecl :i.n J.m~ in rejectil'l{j their evidence surnL11u·iJ.;:r H:i.tl\o:J.t giving it its due consid.eration. In s• deing he eccas:).onocl a fa:i.lu.rc of j1..'.stice en the part of tl:1.e .Appellant. Anothe::c witness relied upon by tlle trial co.:ct ~1c:s HJ o2 :Mwanaidi :Jal;:.;,ri_, the mother of tl:o Il.osponc:.snt. T1.ds 11itn0ss in suppertin5 lier claugLter testifi86. t· .o:b t:;s sui tland belonc~s tc her. She ave1Tsd. t;;at tLe lancl was given to tl:J.e Ecspond.cnt ~:i~· >ar fs.tber and. sLe emphasised tbat it :i_::.: in ths bG.clq,:crd of tbs Respon('ent I s house of resio.ence. SLo w:1s proved a lic:r by tt:o court's visit to tLe said 13.nd. T:-:e ti~:L2,l, court c:.iet visit tL.c sui tland on 1G/B/90. It cLi.d. draw o, sl';etc!1r11ap •f the st:r::rounding area whe:i.:0 tt0 sv.i thn6 is si tuatoc"L 2-11cl. ::_ t is :part of tl:;.:; t:r:i.Ll court's reco:rcl e.nd 'it is n•t subj0ct of a:n;r dispute. Going by tLl.s me,P, tl,.c svi tle,nd is, b-•unded. bJ the shhmba of th0 A:ppellant .en the northern a11c~ western sides, t:~~~(! sl:nrnba of Yusuft: (TTi.3) . ._ the ::ia.st ;::.,l1(i. ·tLe shcili,ba .r Paula jJo s].·.,.2~- (nw.2) ~o t:cG so1.1tl10 ......_.~ t-:', .-~.... -. ~·-~ !:-·. ( • ~ 1 ·. . . . . 9 Beyond the sl..2111bas of th0s-- p0 o::;>1,, c1r-- puthw2.ys. T'.o.;::.:t0 is no single house. of the R0 sp ondcnt nc 2.rb;y l,; t al on0 on..; adj oinin::; tk sui tland. This proves tbat P1i.2 was ly-lnc; in fa,--IT"our of her a.rmgb.for. Yet it is amazing to noti.:; that inspi to of this naked l:i..c 9· th-., trial court novur 1)othc.rGd 0v(.,n to allu0.u to it in its judguncnt anct took P'H".2 as a. truthful wi tncss. It was wrong to do so. Whil:. still on the issu:; of th;_, sk'". tch ma:p 1 it is appropriate to tou.cli 01100 more, on th..:; cvidol1oc of n; .4. This i::i tncss had alsQ. t(.;stifL,cl tbat h__, kn(,,w th:.: su:i.tlc:nd to be t!>~ prop;_.]:,ty of th(, Rcsponclcnt whicL.. she hr.,d inl1G1°:i.tcd fran h .. r fn.ttcr as :he too has a shamba bordGring tb.., sui tl1:1ncJ.. As 1 have sl. oim c.bO'Tc thGr,. is no such sb:;mba bvlonging to Hi .4 go:i.nG by tL sk0tC.::1 Eap. Y0 t the trie,l court took this wi tncss as a wi tncss of. truth and i!iog(,,tL.:,1'. with the :District Court gr;;2,tl3:- rcliod on his wo:r·d to awerd the d.ispukcl land to tbc Rcspone,c.nt. As I said carli, r on in t::.c:Ls juclgcrn-.,nt, tl:( lJ:i.st:rict Court in dismissing th,:; app08.l of tL.: a:pp0llant r0li-:,f on the; claim of PF.4 tl,at th;,, parti_,s to tl:,c co,s;.; ·w0r\:. his grand. ch:i.lc;_rs:;n and t~s2,t tk c:p-pcllant on being a:pproaoh0tl by Pw .4 with tLc fo:.;.sponck,nt' s mc.;ssa£,'O, hi.; had off<.;r0d to biw tll1., J.and. Tb.is is how it approacl:1•..:d the issuos- "In his cvidcmcc at t;;:c trial PW .4 who is tho grandfather of both app0llant ,~1d r..;.spondc;nt compla,in.:d to him that th0 appellant was planting long krm plants whict vic,s contrnry to t):1c conditions Lo · was given w}x,n hi:d.i16 t;_c sharnba e.nd whe;n h0 ask.(,d the a.1Jpullcmt about it tLc app:..,llant rcqu,.-stcd h::LID to ask tLc respondent whc thcr slJ.;; w2,:c, sc lling tLG shaii,ba so tL.at r.c oovJ,cl bu;y it. _;_ quot0 par~ of his cvio. cnc::, i1N.::Ja.u,,ln1.ka rnwcz;i juz~ mwaka ~uu (1990) ,m~cai alinij~a. nc:~ kuni0luza run:-w(,,l0z_, rnc.n::.1,;c. atoc mi ti na mihogo aliyopanclc k~~ tike, sr.tc.mba a,1;,br,lo mdai a.limv13,zin1a huyo ma.aiwa kwo.. mucia,o Nilicnda kumwckze, mc'L::iwa a to;,; mi ti na mihogo ~iyo hwno s::,s.ir;bani mwa mdaio Ed,a;j_wc,, aliniagiza ni):camucl:Lzc mdai cndapo ana.uza sharnba hilo bo'i rahisi ili ni linunuc • " ••••• /10 10 From thG a"i:lovc q_uoktion it is ckar ""vid(.;.ncc that th-., a,}?]_X;lle,nt d.i.d know tl:.u cu.sputod land to be the prop,.:;rty of tL;; rv spondcnt oth.:;rwj_sG he woulc not hav.:; the intention to b1.,1.;;r som0thin,? h0 owns., From tt...u abwc rcc,sons I find that tltls appeal has got no m01·i ts o I dismiss :Lt wi tb costs o" Tb.0 t~•j_al TrimarJ Court rcli-.:::c"'c on this pivco of 0·;r:i.clo11cc and usc.;d t·hc sar,:o xcasoning to dccid0 thv c:3.Sv in th-., ftWOtti' of th,.;, R<.:.sponc'.ont., JStor going wcr the whoL cvi&.,ncci ;::;s received by the trial court I am pcrpl0x0d by the lc.--:xi ty ,Ji k. which botJ.:1 cotrrts bLlow apProc:,cb.cd the 0vidcncc of P\io4 End. tJ..·G R..;spond.cr:t to tho extent •f tr0ating j_t as sacrosanct o:r s ..-,m.':.:.cJ_. First of alJ. t1.c claim tt.at n~.4 i'lc.s tJ::.c young brothGr of liwanyoka }3c.,she. <'.,11,:, t;:;.orcforc the paternal unck of th-:. fathers of the pnrtfos to tllis r,p];k,s,J. wo.s e figm0nt -,f th..., trial magistrate's own irnag:i.n:;tion. TU.s imagin0cl rolationsl:dp cctually weighed hc-:.:1..vily on tb:, m:i.nccS of tLc tris.l cons:Lcl.orcd opinion tb:.,rc is no sucL rclr.tionsh:i.p n,s no s~.ngk witness -~v.;,r dc..pesvd to t};_a.t fr,ct. Mor'-'AVcr, F::.4 admitted ,~tile; b0ing cross-cxamin.:,d by the::, sr,ix,llant to be t!,..., ·0:cot:. cr of on:; Ra,ja,1:;u 8J.cmshuza. TJ.:e,rc is no c1ailL Gvcn by the, tr:i.c.1 r{agistratc th2.t t: is Rajabu is c.lso a orotL.,I' of fh:anyoka :3;,,,sl:.c,. and Pt .4 Paule. B0sb.ae Tllc cvidvnc.:; on J:>CCO]:d sho1:s tL.2,t sor:,s:. tir;.;; in 1970 I tl:is k,je)JU SllGmshuza Lael fl lt<Jnd. cl:i.sputu wi tL k.c a,p:pollant' s fathc;r. IL. sUDd Iddi Kvianyokt', l:;0fo1:·c tL(, Soni Irhio.:ry Court ant b.c losto Fem of tb0 witnesses (:nr.1, PWo2, PW.4j m:.2 and m:.3) who kd a wo]:·d. to say en this 1970 Soni case. wb.icL in my own ass0r.:;sml,nt of the... c.vid..:;nC(.; WBs not conccrni.ng t)..:o s1-1.i tland, oven rncntion;,,,d tba.t Rajabu 2,n~'. Io.c:;i. w;.;r0 brotl::.crs. In th-: hgJ.:..t of all this J. ·hold tL.t l-\:.4 is no rclatioE to th0 parti1...s in this appeal but tc Wc:,s so ?au.sin6 to gain cr0cl:i.bility, whicL ho dj_a., -whil-.; presumably, loold.1'15 for a 'way to avonc;0 tb.G d;;;f'"'at of his brotb.;r by the appcllant I s fa,th(,r in ttc Soni Ceurt . land cc,so. • • 0 0 0 ./11 I' 11 Scconcq.y, the., cvide;ncG oi t:10 Jicsponclc..nt ancl Fil .4 on the i.dontiV of tl1c.. p0rscn "!~o was all,_,gcc.1.ly s.:..;nt by n:., 1 to th~, 2,pp-::.lla.nt ancl wh;:t th,, latter said differ. T::;.>, J:Lsponclcnt mc,ic.1 thrt sh.::, sunt her lO-0011 lc.,c,,dc.,r. She.. nCV(;l' s~'.id tb.2.t the saii~ lc2.clcr was FT; .4. H;.4 011 tLc otl:;.,,r h.:nd novc..r toL; th;, trial court tJ_£,t h0 was a 10-cc.,ll J.ur,e:-r. Tb.c., proble,m i::; fu.Tthc.r catpund;,cl ·: .;__:;- tL., time June, 1s:90 t,nc:. h.:, convcyc.e_ t:·.c /:.p:cxl1cnt'o r..:;G 1}onsc to kr th0rc,c,f't~1~. Eow-:.:vc.i' he suJ:iscqucntly L2,rnt t:·.,:t th;.. Ji-,sporn.1..... nt L2cJ. sold the.. la.nc:. to E\nothcr p~:rson. .."...oco::.C5.I2.[s to A .4 t::,. rJ.J.:.;u:;cl se.L of tl:c, .As ;.,;::rlL:-.:· seen in this jv_clc;.,re;::"t, t:. 1,.; Rcspoxic~i,i.:t t~otifi._,C:. tL.·t :.he soJ.c'. tl:'..c. s-ui tLncl to ld.0.5. (j~J.cDjc_.11.i. in Ii\:;bni_;::r:·, 1$90 c,ftc..r tL-.., app,~11:::nt 1:::,cl foilc.,d to rncJev r:. folJ.0,1 up on b.s of:::U:c' to buy tl:.c sc:c ...: ,::,s s;,,;., hncl instructc.. 6. t:.;,J 10-cc 11 LacJ_l..,J:• to GO back 2,ncl inform JJP .. lo All tLis goes to f'L.01-: th_.t tb"'s~ 1::Lt"Lss,.,s ,KI'(; lyinc.. R0spon(.oi-rt. In her brief stc,torn~~'lt of tL. fc,ctr:; t2-.- Rvsf>OY:,2.;.;r;:t ll~ l~ tole: t:x. tric.l cot:.rt th,:t tt:l.s 1;::2 in 1965. Lo,;,-.;-vc::', she b;:.;l:Lc,4 hci's.clf wl::::n sl:,c sci.cl in her .;_,·v-jJ:.0nc;;, ( wb.i1<.. 1Jcin:::; c:ross-cxan:incc]_ It is now beyond dispuk tlll;,t t::::,. o.:;):;0lJ.c,nt .-w,s iJO:,.i'l J.on 0 before 1965, for Le was in st2nc,,;l'c'. :r.I ( t1,o) 1e;.'.:.cE tLc:1.:e :_;:c:.·.nc::fc:.tl.:.,r, J\.1;c;.nyoka, J3(.,sba diccl in 1959. T.:.K, :i~s:ponc:01'.:t c,:::,rfr10t :}):'.JI'O~)ritc ;;,ild. J2c:;;,1·002.t,., .::t th, sar,::.; tiL1:., ,'.llCL <.xp..,ot to ~):, J.:;_::;tcn.,d to by cov.rtc; of lm intcl\.,stccl only in se,ing tl'-c,t ju;:;t:i.c::., is done wi tl1.out f,wou:r. TLc., R;.,s:ponc'.c;::.t 11;::;s cl1..,ly 'bounc1 to T}::w-:.; ,,:_,en the s1)i tlc-.nc, wns g:Lvc n to t . .,r ~)~· :. ~I' fc. tl:-.. :r c.n,: not l-,;c.,r,., us guessing. Shc., mis0r-2."uly f::-.:,iJ-..:c~ to c:o so but toe> t~.'--:r 1:i tL L... r \· wi tne,ss~ s resorted_ to l;yinge •••••• /12 ... •---•, • .. 12 On a pr•ix,r cvnluBtior. of tJ·._-.; lihok cvicluncc ·on record, I am snt::i.sficcl tl:io,t th;:; fa;spondcnt f,J.Ld to e;stcibhs::. I:e.::.: cldm. Tho apr,~1,1.:mt, on the otl:..0r- hanc.1, t1j_:ro·L-'-{)l the untcint0cl cviclo:nco •f DW;2, DU.3 2.1:.d hirosulf manu.g0tl to prov0 on a baL,ncu of probc,bilitics (if not boyond doubt) thc:1,t tho cl:1.spukd shaitiba/1,mcl wr:s bought by kwo.n;rol:;:a JJ.:;;sha, in 1928 and sj_v:;n 1.:-,t,::r- b3r him to ldoi kwanyoka. Idcli kwe,1woka,- in turn? pe,ssu( it on to the, appclJ.cnt in 1970 and the s2r,;0 L2s been und.i.,;r 0ff,.:,ct::_vc: own..:rship and. occupation of tlic apPcllant sine,:; tbun. ..-1s ti.:.c ~:.ale.lings of tLc trL.1 co:;:.rt and District Court on app;;;al that tl'.!-'~ s1..'.i tb,ncl wc:.s tJ-:.u property of tho Rospond.0nt were bas0d on -wrons iI1.:fc.,rcnc0s o.re,wn from the cvid.0nco, anc: ·wo:i:·sc still •n assur10d e,11:::. c.t ti; -.:s concocted i_;vj_c;_0ncc as v:clJ. as an a misapprchcnsioi1 of c:;.x:.cli.bL. 0vidcnc0 ancl. 2, dolib::;;ratc clisto:ction of tho 12.w by the tr:i_r,J_ cou.rt, they c..r:; L0r-c.by rov,.c1EsGc1 ancL 2.00O:ixlingly quasll-.:,d. In finu, this app~e.l is c:llowc..d in its untj_rut:y witt costs. Tb.o appclla,nt is dcclt\r(.,cl to 1:;c t:;,'..; J.o.yful owner of tJ::.c sui tland. ,. ( ~.K.K<:;.:i~~1~. ) JU:OG:J 30/10/92 Cora.m: :::: .L .1.. Rutalmngwa~ J. A:ppcJ.J.ant: F'r;.;scnt in r,-:.;rson " QQ_Uh~t_- Jud.gom0nt d.clivo:;.-v..;d in Coi.1.rt this 30t!l &.:y •f 0ctob0r, 1992 at Lvshote. .c2~.,vfz. ( :S .10 .K~RUTiJ(J11GEA ) JUDGE 30/10/92