19801108 TZHC Mwanza1
The appellant was not a tenant and had no legal right to remain in the respondent's house; the concurrent findings of the lower courts were justified and should not be disturbed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19801108 TZHC Mwanza1
- Parties
- Appellant: Houlla Bukabitungwa; Respondent: Joseph Kitou
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 8 November 1980
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, Eviction, Tenancy
- 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
Houlla Bukabitungwa
Appellant
Joseph Kitou
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to remain in the respondent's house on the shamba
- 2 Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding ownership and occupation were justified
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was not a tenant and had no legal right to remain in the respondent's house; the concurrent findings of the lower courts were justified and should not be disturbed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- appellant to vacate the house
- costs awarded to respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COU1fl OF TANZANLA AT tVWANZA' (pc) cIvIL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1979 (From the dec1ion of the District Court of ukoba t Bukoba in Civil Appeal No, 40 of 197 8 ) HOULLA 9lJKABITUNGWA APPFLLANT versus - JOSEPH KITO1J ... 0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESPOI\1DFN 1 J UD G •I EN T RUMA, J. The facts as found established by the trial and appellate courts are that the respondent had in 1965 purchased a shamba from the appellant's husband, On this sha;nba was a houa inside which the appellant was left to stay by her husband pending the erection of another house at the shanba to which the appellant's husband had noved. The appellant refused to acconpany her husband when the later went for her and cetinued to live in another house in the :sane shamba. This house was built by the respondent. In the respondent's house, the appellant was living free of charge. The appellant how refuses to !acate the house. The trial court having found the facts as ottlined above ordered that the appellant vacate the house. The app1lant appEaled to the District Court which court concurredwith the trial court. She now appeals to this court. This is thus a second appeal. - The concurrent £indings:of fact by the two lower courts are based on the evidence on record and are thus fully justified. There is no reason to interfere with their findings that the shanba and the house on it belong to the respondent. The appellant was no .tnant -of the respondent. I see the appeal is devoid 'of any. nerit and is accord ugly dismissed withoosts. \1WNIA Sgd: YAHYA RUBAA - 8th November, 1980. - JUDGE -.'' . cF?TIFIED TRUE. COPY OF THE OhIGINAL DISTRICTREGIS,JR i'1WANZ