19930427 TZHC Dar es Salaam

'r<N --.THE HIGH COUH'l' OF TANZANIA AT UAR ES SALAAM -- -- ·pt;· • • ,. {PC) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO .. 14 OF 1992 (From the decision.0f the District Court of Kilosa at Kilo;Ja in C'riminal Appeal No.209 of 1991 P~iroarycou.rt Kidodi - Ngwira Criminal case No.114/91) HUSSEIN LUMETA o o •o .. • ., ., ., • o o .. o.,., .. o o • • • A.PPET,LANT versus S&:ll,IA C.-lAULEHI RESP QN'iENT . JUDGMENT The appellant HUSSEIN LUMETA was charged with criminal' trespssn f!./s 299 ... ( a) of the Penal Code in the Primary Court of Ki~·oAi Ngwi.ra in the"'~istrict of Kilosa 2 Morogo:ro aegion• He. was foun"' guilty as ~harge~ anA fineA shscl,0001= or go to jail for three months in Aefault. He was furtner or~ereA to•pay shs.1,.rso;... compensation..., to the..,complainant ·an~ vacate· the place ·of lan.A he haA trespa-sse-'. He pai~ the fine anA cumpensation an~ appeale~ to the n1strict court of Kilosao The District court dismisse1 the -appeal anA he is now appealing to this court.. In arguing this appeal the appellant t.-,1..:i the C')u.rt that his .., main complaint ts against the orAer ~ ~emollsh ~ls house whieh haA been there s~ncewl976Q It woulr appear that he a..:imits t~ have buil• · a pit latrine anA plante~ coconut. trees in the...,plot belonging to the responAent. In faci he has alreaAy c0mp~ieA with tne orAer to ~emolish the latrine anA uproot the c0¢"onut-trees he haA plainte~ knowing that the plot belongs to the raspon..:ient.w .... In_ opposing the-appeal the respcn~ent stateA that in 1984 .., the appellant was· urAe;re-4 to pay shsc 200/= Cl~mpensa~ion for Aestroying twGnty bariana plants belonging to her~an..:i he was orAereA to .stop interferring with the plot. Instea;i of A,,ing that the appellant cl,,_:ti-ne..1/that tbe._ sh~200./•--he p-aiA··was the price of the ' the..,plot ahA that the...,plot was henteforth his- p ope . pla~ten cocunut. trees at£·,., pineapp,les in c.:,ntravent1on of the .., In view 9f the evi~ence vn rect. r"' an"' the appellant's own aAm a 14mission I am satisfie;ll that he was pr~·,perly c:•··nvicte-t nf tretJpei,i. The fine of.shs~ltOOO/= is not in anyway excessive an,., Su is the .., The appellant has cvmplaineA that he was also ,..,r,.ere-' t<"· ~emolish his hcuse wh:i.ch has been there since 19,76 wi t.h no C•Hnpla~t frcim anyvne.. Frvm the evirlence 0n rec "ir"' t:here is n .- justificat.1011 for such an 0r,..:;er., ~ 'E:ven the respc-n-"ent 1 whc, was the c ·)mplainant in the primary C( url: "i,.. nut cvmplain ab('Ut the appellan~• s h-'.1use. Her complaint relate"' tu tfie d~conut trees; pineapples an"' the pit lauine. The court er-"erer'l the-appellant t,, Aemr.lish the pit latrine •• ~nA remove. t~)e c0ccnut trees aw·1 pineapple plants,; Tne appellant informeA me 5hat he has alreaAy c1..:mplieA. wit!}.., this 1r"'ero M3b,:l.takiwa amrur'lishie mlalamikaji mara m:.,ja gharama ya shauri hili ambazo ni shsol,150/= Mshitakiwa aonrlushe mara rn,ja vycte alivyn- viweka 111"' ani ya kiwanj a cha mlalamikaj i kama mipaka ilivyoonyeshwe na mashahi"'i 7 mlalamikaji ~ .. w.. 2 Nrlehele na M-o Shith yaani ch,_,.:,, minazi 'na ~~-banrla kilich0zi"'i ambach•., vy, ·te ni mall ., .... ya msh:Ltaki~a'-'na V'i1.'n,,11 ·shwe mara ffi)jao 11 , the r'lisputerl pl,;t the appellant! s huu_se which he says was built in 1976 is we1l wi th:tn h:Ls 0wn plot an,# s,:, the 0r"'er cann-,t relaie to tha~ hl-•USee However· the sketch plan also sh,:,ws a small hu-b (I<iban"'aJ wh't.ch is i:-1 the 1:-espc.n-"entt f; plot., It is this ,-.ne whif'h must be ~emul ~.. si·.;::• ,. In the course of his argument the appe1lant only mentiuner'I nis big h:.use an"' rna~e nc menticn (,.f the hut which the trial court f'-,unr'I tc. be in the respon,.qent:s plot., I ,.,,~ nr:t think that the appellant ha<., ctny .:::.-mplc:i.in+ c:i.bout this being Aem,,lishe"' •·th'erwise 3 - he w0ulA have referreA to it in hi~\appeal. Fr0m the evi~ence anA the sketc,h plan it is clear that(.(f_~::1 hut is in the resp .mAent' s plot .,, i_:1'¼ anA su the trial c.~urt was justifie"' in nr~er.ing that it be ,.emcili'1he"• · In the final result this appeal fails an,. -.:: Aismiss it. - ~ r e d in chambers at ·M<>rogoro ~;;~Nt;, •ay of tlecember l!l92 iti the presence of ~us EIN LUMETA the appA!lant in person Sl=X'.ILIA 'fiHAULEHI the responAe • 11/12/92 _. :.a If ,. ,,,. , ) r