19910524 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The trial court's decision is upheld as the respondents acquired title to the land through lawful allocation by the authority, and the appellants' occupation did not override the allocation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19910524 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: ICTICO-01-DI CHL U3~-1L~IK/, C2:L BIHTI H/i.TOLA; Respondent: JUHUDI GROCERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 24 May 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Land Allocation, Ownership Dispute, Compensation
- 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
ICTICO-01-DI CHL U3~-1L~IK/, C2:L BIHTI H/i.TOLA
Appellant
JUHUDI GROCERIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are the lawful owners of the land in dispute
- 2 Whether the land allocation authority acted lawfully in reallocating the land
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's decision is upheld as the respondents acquired title to the land through lawful allocation by the authority, and the appellants' occupation did not override the allocation.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Record remitted to trial court to effect compensation order in accordance with the law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ir·· ':"!, CIVIL J;.;._-,-:.:·~LL HO. 25 OF . 1 990 ( O~lIGIH./iL IITSU?U CI7IL CLG:S IiC • 8.5 OF 1990) vcrsun JUHUDI GROC:iE2I:SG C0-0:-0 • GOCI:8TY. LTD •. - n.~SPONDEHT I The rc.spondont.s, J"J:~::-J..JZ. G~~CCZI?.I2C C0-0:i?ERJ.TIVE SOCIZTY LTD•,. ·. i G.Uc.c.cssfully succ: tho c:_:; 1)cll8::1t:::, ICTIC-01-DI CHL .U3~-1L~IK/, C2:L BIHTI H/i.TOLA t he fore, tl20 cou1 t o:f tho :;.;o..oidont Ivlnci.s trn to.. of :Jnr cs - 1 Snlnnr.1 n t 1<::isutu, fo1 troc~xu.:;oinc onto c: parcel o:f lnnd known 1 a::.. plot. No,590, Block lfo ~:i:10:.:C:.oni • The o.ppollnnts bcinc; nGerieved by tho dccicio~ o~ t~o court o:f firot inGtnnco hnvq now oppcnlod to thiG court~ Accordinc to t:-io :;_).rococdi:1c;.s ~)oth in this court ar:c: nt tho trial court .it would c~pocr not to ~o in dispute that prior to 1905 both tho np~ollcnto nnc.. -c.::10 :i. ospo:nd.on t a wore 1.n 1 , - 1 . - _,/.-· occy- ,;ion t ' of' tho lnnd i:"l question. It ia, howovorf in evidence tho.·~ .. subsoqucm,t to their occu:x, tion tho lnnd in quc::. t~on wc.s · curvcycd ! by the :Jn:c cs Galnm., City Council m1.d in 19C6 nllocc tion o:f tho 5.cid lnnd wn:.:;_ c;ivon to tho :i. 0..spondonts 1 to tho oxcluoion o~ tho uppcJ..lnntc:. It. is co:·.11:1on cround tnnt nt tho tiD.o of' nllocntion tho c.ppcllnnts had 'i)y then co::-istructoc1 their business. b.ut.s onto tho suit plot.,. 'l'ho nppollnnts, ao · oG:.,,ly doi:10nstrntod in their c:..~ounC::n of nppocl to this co-:..u. t, bnvo nttnclwd tbo decision of tho ::)c.:.~ os- 1 Gnlc::nm City Council i~oinc. tho cuthori ty :for lnncl-c:llocntion to hc::.vo ro-nllocatod lcnc: to tho roc:)on0onto their boinc in occt.:)ation nt tho 1:1cto:.... inl tine !1.ot wi th.stanclinc.; It is on tho sa □ o breath th8t tho7 ~ovo attncko~ tho decision of tho trial court• . 2 ... ... Tho rcGponc:ontc on -:;:"lo ot::o:...,., ~c<.end c,ssort th.-::,t tl:oy have ., lnwfuly boon ro-2lloccd;oc. t:,.o l2nc: in dispute - :C.:;:~~ t. 2.!..J. ,. by tho :Jo.r oG Salncr,1 City Council ,-1::ich ih lnw i0 tho lc::nd nllocntion authorityi Tho... quos tion w~-~icl-::. 1.0 no·w fm_,., considora tion 2nd dotori:1inn tion is whether or not tho rooponContG 2ro tho lawful ownorn of tho lnnd in dis::•uto •. The loa.rnec: l:.osidcnt i-b5istratc hole. th2t so lone os ot tho oo □ ont tho C~?cllcnts have boon issued with a cortificn to of occu:xmcy - · ::;~l:i~:>i t .2J'o,J. before the eyes of the law they df tho diO?~tcd portion for th8 dovelo~;r:1onto , tl:07 hnvo r.~G.de onto t:J.o lnnd nou in c.iopute. To this vic.w I rcs:)cctft.1lly fully subocribo • · I woulc: hcston to add, however,. thnt this com.,.,t h2G :-iold on r:.mny occossiono thnt· where lnnc: is alrondy oc.c.upiod, tho lo.nd-nllocc.tion c.uti.1.ori ty uust have very stronc . r.casons for. ro-qllocotinc it to m'lothor i)Crson. In tho ins.tnnt. r.m.ttor both pnrtics 1-10:20 i:n occu:i_xi.tion of' tho lnnc:. in quoction; but the lcncl-2.llocction o.ut:10ri ty :;_)rcforrod tho r.oopondcnto to tho nppollc:u;tto •. Tho roco:::--cl of'· tho trinl court cloco not inclicntc or su3aost rcthor 1ilict wo~o tho rocsons that □ado tho authority behave tho way i t c:id. ;:::ut tj:1c:t is a far cry f'ror.1 dcyinc thnt.: the rospondcnto ~id not cc~uiro titlQ to tho land now in ~uostion. Hnvine; ro 0 crc: to t~:c is.sue of tho ownership of tho lcnc:. I have considcrnblo difficulty in fcultinG tho decision of' tho trial court in tho circc □ stc~cos of tho cc.so. On this Gcoro clone I i:-,ould disr.1ioc tho n:):;_)onl n:a.d ti:;_)hold tho dccioion of' the trinl court. I o.cco1~cti1~cly cli::i,:1iss the appeal with coG to, It is however directed thc.t tho roco:;.~d bo rcr:iittcc1 to tho trial court to offoct tho coi:1:i_)onsn tion order in nccordonco to tho ln-w.• J• .1.··~ iJ. G, ,lU:JGE 17/5/1991 24/5/1991 Court.:: 11:10 judcrncnt is C::.olivcrccl in ci10. □bors in tho prc·soncc of' both ;.)nrtios tlcxouch their :i.~oprosontc:t·ivcs. (lTilGIDU l-1i1T:ZIUl n:;.1.c: LJ.. ~-c=mc~ :G:J:l-BE rospEJo:tively) at :::)n:;..~ ca Gnlnor.1 this 24th day of I~cy, 1991. _!..i. 1· --. _, •:/ i.--: "· ,v _I c;_,;v,/l(...._ J • J • MJ.C-Ti~-G • JtDG0 4/....,,5.L]-29-1 __- - - - - _ '___2___