20061220 TZHC Arusha
The appellant failed to prove allocation of the land by village authorities or that the respondent's occupation was merely permissive; thus, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 20061220 TZHC Arusha
- Parties
- Appellant: John Aitoo; Respondent: Meskei Mafunya
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court)
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, Burden of Proof, Allocation by Village Authorities
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Aitoo
Appellant
Meskei Mafunya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal (high Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant proved ownership of the disputed land
- 2 Whether the land was allocated to the appellant by village authorities
- 3 Whether the respondent's occupation was permissive or otherwise
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove allocation of the land by village authorities or that the respondent's occupation was merely permissive; thus, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Parties to be summoned by the Deputy Registrar and judgment to be read over to them.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ATARUSHA PC. CIVIL A:PPEAL NO. 28 OF 2003 (Originating from Babati D/Court Civil Appeal No. 47/2002) JOHN AITOO ............... 1•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• APPELLANT 'VERSUS MESKE! MAFUNYA ................................. RESPONDENT. 1 JUDGMENT. BEFORE: L. B. MCHOME, J. The Appellant, John Ai~oo, successfully sued the Respondent, Meskei Mefunya, in the Magugu Primary Court of ' Babati District for recovery qf a piece of land. The respondent was aggrieved by the decisipn of the trial court and appealed i to the District Court. Her appeal was allowed. This aggrieved I the appellant who preferred this second appeal. "K~e parties are disputing over ownership of the disputed land,\Jhile,the appellant{ cas:e is that the la~d is his since 1963 \ ~ ~ 1 ' \. and that he d\ared moye bushes and increased its size~ that the same was alit:)cated to him by the village government and i , he gave a portion of\. it to the respondents husband who died a I year late 1and that the respondent refuses to return the land to ii ;j 2 him;it is the respondent's case that her husband and her➔ cleared the land by themselves and built a house there. In allowing the appeal the 1st appellate Court held, inter '. - ~Jthat the appellant merely said those words but did not prove them. I agree with the 1st app~llate court that the appellant did not prove that he was allocated the land by the village authorities. He called no evidence to,- prove this. Evidence of UJi lro lA f-4-~ ; the casualclabou-re who on cleare the land is not sufficient llfS-'---R:1l\..,~~#----<.~'JJ.6:~~k~vl- ~ , proo_~ But above all, even if the appellants words were to be believed that he gave the land to the respondent's husband, he allowed him to build a house to live therein. He must have -f>..e..-i'"'~ r,.e..,..,_,t, ~ given it to the husband pfeemi~. People do not build itbn houses to live in---#l~emporarily.At least there was no -/haJ 1t"--'l lPt,.-d vJ~~ ;1 i ve"" ~ 4 ➔ka.-<~ ~s 1~ evidence to that effec1i-9n reGord. Therefore I agree with the 1st appellate Court. The appeal is without any merit and I dis.miss it with costs. L.B. MCHOME, IUDGE 20/12/2006 l I 3 !. .l ORDER: Parties to be summone_dl by the D.R. and read over this '. ;- . .. I I judgment. L.B. MC~ OME, • I JUDGE . I I 20;1 2}2006. I . ; ! ., , I I I I I I ; I ' I I I l l J ;~