Shuwira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (LAND DIVISION) AT DAR ES SALAAM LAND CASE NO. 63 OF 2022 KHAMIS HUSSEIN SHUWIRA................ 1st PLAINTIFF PATRICK PETRO SHAYO........................................................... 2ndPLAINTIFF ADAM SAMWEL MIRAMBO........................................................ 3rdPLAINTIFF VERSUS LOUS ALFRED KILUWA....................................... 1st DEFENDANT FINYA MUNISH................................................... 2nd DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Date of Last Order: 09.06.2023 Date ofJudgment: 25.07.2023 T. N. MWENEGOHA, J, The plaintiffs above named, jointly, are seeking for a declaration from this Court, against the defendants, jointly and severally, that, they are rightful and lawful owners of pieces of lands, situated at Vikaweshule, within Kibaha District and Pwani Region. The said pieces of lands, comprise a total size of 45 acres when put together, hereinafter called, "the suit land". 18 acres among them, belong to the 1st plaintiff (Khamis Hussein Shuwira), 15 acres, for the 2nd plaintiff (Patrick Petro Shayo) and 12 acres, belonging to the 3rd plaintiff (Adam Samwel Mirambo). They called six witnesses and tendered 10 Exhibits, to prove their claims, in relation to the following agreed issues: - 1. Who is a lawful owner of the suit property. 1 2. To what reliefs are parties entitled to. ) In his testimony, PW1, Mr. Khamis Hussein Shuwira (1st plaintiff), insisted that, the suit land is at Vikaweshule, Kibaha District and Pwani Region. That, his land comprises of 18 acres. That, when he purchased it, he measured the same by using footsteps. It is boarded by a road at the Western side of it, Mr. Patrick Peter at the East, Mr. Shayo at the Southern side and another road on the Northen side. That, he bought the said land from different people on different occasions. That, the first person to sell him the piece of land was Shaban Said, by whom he purchased a total of 3 acres at a price of 850,000/=, in 2007, as shown in Exhibit Pl. He continued to state that later on, in 2007 he purchased another 3 acres from Siwema Ramadhani at a price of 1,100,000/=, as seen in Exhibit P2. This land is bordered on the east by Abdallah Mayunga, a road at the west, north and southern sides. He then purchased another 3 acres in 2008 from Fatuma Ally as seen in Exhibit P3. The boundaries for this land were that, Shabani said was found on the western part of it, and the rest was bordered by roads (on the east, north and southern parts). Thereafter, in 2008, he acquired 3 more acres from Abdallah Mayunga at a price of 1,000,000/=, as seen in Exhibit P4. The land was bordered by Abdallah Maneno Hussein (east), Siwema Ramadhani (west), and a road (north and south). On the same year, he added another 3 acres from Mr. Said Kibangula. The same is boarded by Siwema Ramadan (East), Fatuma Ally, (North), the road on the western and southern sides, as shown in Exhibit P5. The last 3 acres came from Mr. Abdallah Maneno Hussein, also in 2008, at 1,000,000/=. It was claimed that the same was surrounded by roads 2 on the east, North and Southern sides, while Mr. Abdallah Mayunga was found on the western side of the said land, Exhibit P6. These six transactions mark a total of 18 acres claimed by PW1 in his testimony. He insisted that, he got the money to purchase the said land from his businesses and also a contribution from his father. All transactions were conducted before the Local Government Office of Vikaweshule Street. , When cross-examined by Advocate Mtobesya, PW1 stated that, all those pieces of land were located at the same area, where some of them share boundaries while others are separated from each other. That, he purchased them at a different price. That, he did not have any proof of payments he made to the sellers on the six lands he bought between 2007 and 2008. That, the mount he paid is shown in the documents he tendered as Exhibits. PW1 went further to say that, he saw beacons in the said land, but he did not know who had placed them there. On re- examination, he insisted that, he bought the land in 2007 and 2008. That, between 2011 and 2015 he was using it for cultivation purposes and he found the beacons in 2021 after visiting the place. That, he had not visited the same before that, for a while. PW2, Patrick Petrol Shayo (2nd plaintiff) informed this Court that his farm of 15 acres is also located at Vikaweshule, Kibaha District and Pwani Region. Like the PW1, he bought it between 2007 and 2008 from different persons. The first person to sell the land to him was called Ally Shaban Nguza, who sold 3 acres to him. He then acquired another 3 acres from Pili Shukuru Ramadhan, and 3 more acres from Said Mwinyimkuu. Further to that, he bought 3 acres from Shani Ally and 3 other acres from Abdallah Ramadhan Salum. He produced 5 Sale Agreements which were admitted as Exhibit P7 collectively. As done by PW1, the Agreements were conducted before the Local Government leaders of Vikaweshule Street, 3 namely, Balozi Michael Muba and the Street government Chairman, Said Ramadhan. It was his testimony further that, for the 1st piece of land, he paid 700,000/= to Ally Shabani, then 1,000,000/= to Shukuru Ramadhani for the 2nd piece of land, also paid 950,000/= to Said Mwinyimkuu as purchase price for the 3rd land. He went on to say that, 1,000,000/= was paid to Shani Ally for the 4th piece of land and 800,000/= to Abdallah Ramadhan for the last piece of land he bought in that particular time. PW2 insisted that, he found the 1st defendant with several other people brought by him in his land in 2022. When cross-examined by Advocate Nkungu, PW2 stated that, the 1st land was purchased by him in the year 2017, but the farm in question was purchased it in 2007. He later insisted that, he bought the land in dispute between 2017 and 2018. That, since 2017 he was using it for cultivation. That, he planted cassava and beans until 2021. That, he was not residing in the suit land, rather he was going to the place occasionally. He also claimed not to know the 1st plaintiff before the dispute. He stated that his neighbor in the disputed land was his witness in the transaction. When he was asked to explain why the buyers never knew each other but the handwriting of all agreements are the same, it was his reply that the person who wrote the Agreements is the same in all of them throughout the years. That's why the handwriting appears to be the same in all Sale Agreements. He further stated that the sellers were given the said plots by the Village Government. That, the 1st plaintiff trespassed on the suit property in 2022. He insisted that, he is a resident of Boko in Dar es Salaam, therefore, he was not aware of what was happening at his farm. That, he did not even know if the 1st plaintiff was involved in a criminal case with other persons on that particular land. That, he is not related to 4 the 1st plaintiff, they are just neighbors. That, he does not know why their Agreements are similar in terms of handwriting, the dates and years of upon which the transaction occurred. When answering the questions asked by the Court, PW2 stated that, Mr. Khamis Shuwira is his neighbor since 2007. Their lands are adjacent to each other. He is his neighbor, though he is not named in the Agreement. It is because, when PW2 was buying the land in question, Mr. Shuwira was not there or he was there but was not involved in the transaction. PW3, Adam Samwel Mirambo (3rd plaintiff) testified that, the defendants trespassed in his 12 acres farm at Vikaweshule, Kibaha District and Pwani Region. It was his narration that he bought the land in 2007 and 2008, from four different persons. That, he purchased the first 3 acres for the price of 700,000/= from Tabia Juma in 2007 and the same year he bought 3 acres for at 900,000/= from Athuman S. Mgeni. That, in 2008 he bought 3 acres for 1,000,000/= from Jumanne Ramani and the last 3 acres were bought from Ramadhan Mshindo, as evidenced by Exhibit P8 collectively. The first was sold to him at a price of 700,000/= by Tabia Juma in 2007, the second one at 900,000/= in 2007 by Athuman S. Mgeni. Then another land at 1,000,000/= by Jumanne Ramani in 2008 and the last one by at 850,000/- from Mawazo Salehe 850,000/- in the same year. That all transactions were conducted before Michael Muba and Mrisho Ramadhan as Local government leaders of Vikaweshule Street. When cross-examined by Advocate Nashon, PW2 insisted that, before buying the said land, he satisfied himself that the land did not belong to anyone. He did that with Mr. Richard Muba who told him that the said land belonged to the people who sold the same to him. He was given documents, Exhibit DI collectively, showing that, the said land was given 5 to those people for farming on temporary basis. That, they were supposed to return the land to the owner upon being required to do so. That, PW2 did not know if the land he purchased had already been surveyed. That, his land is bordered by the road in the east, north and south, while there I is Mr. Shayo on the western side of it. That, he came to know the other plaintiffs in 2007 when he was purchasing the land in dispute. That, his neighbor now is Peter Patrick Shayo. He also provided that the land of Mr. Khamis is near from his land. That, when they bought the farms, they did not know each other. That, he does not know why their Agreements contain the same witnesses, Michael Muba and Ramadhan Mrisho. But all of them bought the lands in the same periods, 2007 and 2008 as shown in Exhibit P4 and P8, both Agreements were entered on the 20th June 2008. But they were not together at that time. That, PW2 never lived in his farm, but he was using it for cultivation purposes. That, the defendants trespassed on it in 2021. That, when he bought his farm, he found an unfinished structure (gofu la nyumba) on the said land. The plaintiff also called PW4, Abdallah Bakari Apendae, a Local government leader for Vikawe shule, between 2000 and 2004. He testified that, during his leadership, the villagers came to him. They wanted land and they chose a particular land (suit land). They claimed that, the said land had become nuisance to them as it was not used by anyone. That, they wanted it to be allocated to them for farming. PW4 decided to visit a District Commissioner for Kibaha by then called Hawa Ngurume. The District Commissioner then consented to the request by PW4 to allocate the suit land to the villagers. About 15 persons were given land by the Village government under his supervision. One of them is Jumanne Ramadhani, who was given 3 acres by PW4 and the rest of the people 6 named in the testimonies of PW1-PW3, as sellers. All were given 3 acres each. They were residence of Vikaweshule. PW4 tendered 14 documents to prove the allocation of the said lands to the named people, the same were admitted as Exhibit P9 collectively. When cross-examined by Advocate Nkungu, PW4 insisted that, the land was allocated to the people as per the procedures. They started with a village meeting. PW4 stated that he did not have the minutes of that meeting as the same is at the village office. That the land which was distributed to the villagers was about 44 acres. Some of those given the land, like Mr. Mwinyimkuu, Abdallah Shaban and Siwema Ramadhan were all members of the Village Executive Council. In total, they were five members. The documents were mostly signed by three as shown in the Exhibits tendered in Court. His testimony was supported by that of PW5, Mrisho Ramadhan Salum, Chairman of Vikaweshule Area, between 2004 to 2009. He is the one who supervised the Sale of the named plots to the plaintiffs and the allocation of the lands to the sellers, Exhibit PIO. When cross-examined by Advocate Nkungu, he stated that, he was instructed by the District Commissioner of Kibaha, called Abdallah Dololo, to allocate and give ownership of the said land to the people named in the documents. Those people were given a temporary ownership of the land in question, and they were not supposed to build any permanent structures on it. PW6, Shaban Uliza Babu, also supported the testimony of PW4 and PW5. He insisted that he owns a 3 acres land from 2003 after being give the land by the Village government for a consideration of 45,000/= for each. PW6 is among the persons who sold his land to PW1. That was all for the plaintiff's case. 7 The defendants' case proceeded exparte against the 2nd defendant. Three witnesses appeared for the 1st defendant who strongly disputed the plaintiffs' claims against him. In his testimony, DW1, Louis Fundi Alfred Kiluwa, insisted that, the disputed land for now is located at Miwale, Pangani Ward, Kibaha District and Pwani Region. It is true that, before that, the said land was in Vikaweshule, but the Village was divided into two. DW1 stated that, he was allocated the suit land by the Vikaweshule Village government after sending his request in the year 2000. In 2004 he applied for a survey. That, he requested the land through a letter, and then the Village government of Vikawe by then replied to a request, and he paid 4,400,000/= for the said land, by instalments, up to 2004That, they wrote to him to acknowledge the payment. The letter was written in 2004 by the Village Chairman Abdallah Apendae. That, one Mrisho Selemani and Abdallah Apendae are the ones who showed DW1 the suit land which was a bush. That, after surveying the area he got about 45 acres. He put beacons throughout the suit land. DW1 produced a Sale Agreement between Vikawe Village and him over the suit land, and it was admitted as Exhibit D2. That, in the said Agreement, a list of land owners was attached. DW1 was told that, they were given a compensation and agreed to vacate the said land, as they owned it before they were moved through a compulsory Vijiji operation. Each owned 3 acres. They abandoned the lands as they had their own farms before. The person leading the transaction was Mr. Abdallah Apendae. DW1 went on to say that, among them, one person claimed to have not received the compensation. His name is Said Mbwana Kilo. DW1 paid him 200,000/= and a Sale Agreement was prepared by the village government 8 as he paid at the village government's office, Exhibit D3. The same was signed by Mr. Mrisho Ramadani as a chairperson. That was in 2007. That, DW1 planted trees (Mitiki, coconut trees, mango trees) around the whole land. Also built a three rooms house. The said house was demolished and people stole the iron sheets, windows frames and doors. The land is bordered by cemeteries in the west, Hon. John Mgetta and foreign affairs' land in the south, while there is a main road on northern side. Also, that there was a keeper residing in the house built by DW1, he was called Lazaro Makange Musa Msiri. That, he once sold part of his land, about 5 acres to an Insurance Agency as shown in Exhibit D4. That was in 2012. Also sold part of it to one Solomon, TRA officer, as shown in Exhibit D5. That, he surveyed it in 2004, Exhibit D8. In 2005, the village government told him to survey it in terms of plots the same to be sold, and not as a firm as the area was transformed it a Hamlet, from a village, Exhibit D6. That, his farm was latter invaded by people, he arrested them and charged them at Kibaha Primary Court. They were all convicted and served a 5 months sentence in prison, as seen in Exhibit D7. That, Both the Vikawe Village and Miwale Village know his existence on the suit land. When cross-examined by Advocate Mapunda, DW1 maintained that, he acquired the land in the year 2000 and was paying in instalments up to October 30, 2004. It was sold to him by the Village Government. They estimated the land to have 44 acres. He requested a survey in August 2004. The Sale Agreement was written after finalizing the amount due. That, he did not know Mr. Mbwana Kilo, but he paid the money at the village office as shown in Exhibit D3. The suit land is now located at Miwale Village and not Vikaweshule. The land was purchased at a price of 4,4 9 million. That, he was not given any receipt, rather an Agreement was executed. DWl's testimony was supported by that of DW2, Lazaro Musa Msilimwa, the farm keeper since 2000. Furthermore, the testimony of DW3, Allen Dominic Lyimo, supported that of DW1. DW3 insisted that, he knew the 1st defendant as the owner of the land in dispute. Currently, the land is situated at Pangani Ward and he is a chairman of the area since 2019. The size of the land is more than 40 acres. That, in 2021, the 1st defendant's employee, one Lazaro Musa informed DW3 of the invasion of the suit land. There were about 70 people on the scene, three of them were arrested, charged and later convicted. That, he is a resident of that area since 2004. They requested to divide the street and the request was granted. It was his testimony that, the 1st defendant's employee, Lazaro Musa lived there for a long time. He participated in social activities in the area. That, the 1st defendant is well known to be owning the suit land. The suit land has already been surveyed and has beacons. After invasion, some of the beacons were removed. That, Mr. Mrisho Ramadhan was a local leader from 2004 to 2009. When cross-examined by Advocate Mapunda, DW3 insisted that, he is a Chairman of Miwale. He was in Vikawe since 2004. That, the family(relatives) of the 1st defendant also have plots in the suit land. The land in question belongs to Mr. Kiluwa. That is a well-known fact, and Mr. Lazaro was a keeper for a long time. That was all for the defense case, and a site visit was the conducted, where the witnesses (PW1-PW3 and DW1-DW3, showed the bounderies io of the disputed land. Later, the parties were ordered to file their closing submissions. Mr. Joseph Mandela Mapunda, for the plaintiffs, has argued in his submissions that, the plaintiffs have discharged their duty to prove their I claim against the defendants as provided in sections 110(1) and 115 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R.E 2019. They have proved to be owners of the suit land as they managed to show how each acquired his piece of land he owns. That, they bought it from different persons, where the total size of it is 15 acres. The said sellers had good tittles, capable of passing the same to the plaintiffs as stated in Ally Musa Mgulu & Another versus Peter Peter Junior & 3 Others, Land Case No. 213 of 2020, High Court of Tanzania, Land Division at Dar Es Salaam, (unreported). Therefore, the defendants, particularly the 1st defendant, is a trespasser who deserve no remedy. On his part, Advocate Deogratius Mhinyila for the 1st defendant, contended in his final submissions that, the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims against the defendants. That, they did not even know the location of the lands they claimed to own. They stated that, the suit land is located at Vikaweshule Area, while in reality it is at Miwale Pangani Ward, as correctly stated by the DW1-DW3. That, these changes occurred in 2014, and the plaintiffs are not aware of the changes while they claim to have acquired their land in 2007. If the land was theirs, then they would not have missed this crucial information about their properties. Since the parties are to be bound by their pleadings, the misidentification of their properties as shown in the plaint is fatal and should not be overlooked, as stated in Lupembe Village & 2 Others versus Bethleham Mwandafywa and 5 Others, Civil Appeal No. 377 of 2020, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mbeya, (unreported). n Further, it was submitted that none of the plaintiffs explained in their testimonies as to what was in their land. Only PW1 managed to state the existence of trees planted by him and the three-bedroom house, referred as Gofu by PW3. However, during the site visit, it was PW1 who showed the said Gofu and claimed to be in his land, instead of being in PW3's land as stated in his testimony. It was argued further that, even if we agree that the suit land was sold to the plaintiffs by the named sellers in their testimonies, still the procedures upon which the so-called original owners acquired the land contain serious illegalities. The procedures of allocating the village land to those people were not at all followed by the authorities claiming to have allocated it to them. Owing to that, they cannot have a good title to pass to the plaintiffs, hence their transactions are null and void. That, the testimony of PW4 & PW5 is untrustworthy and untrue. The said witnesses appear in transactions involving the plaintiffs as well as the 1st defendant in the same land. In conclusion, the 1st defendant's counsel insisted that, the plaintiffs failed miserably to prove their claims against the 1st defendant. Their evidence is weak as their testimonies are unreliable, raising a lot of questions and contradictions. When visiting the site in quo, the plaintiffs failed even to identify their claimed pieces of land, in terms of bounderies, features available and marks, including their neighbors. Unlike the 1st defendant who identified everything on the land, the building, drilled well, a wrecked house(gofu), residential houses built by him, territorial bounderies and the neighbors surrounding him. These are the important elements in proving ownership which are lacking to the plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court should decide in favour of the 1st defendant as his evidence is strong. 12 Having summarised the evidence of the parties and their witnesses, in line with the arguments of their respective counsels in their final submissions, now, I have to decide as to who is the lawful owner of the suit property. Let's start by understanding the jurisprudence behind the term what ownership. i According to John Austin: "Ownership means right which avails against everyone who is subject to the law conferring the right to put thing to user of indefinite nature, a right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in point of disposition and unlimited in point of duration", (see Ownership in Jurisprudence: Meaning, Kinds, Incidents and Relevance in Contemporary Times available at < https://lawbhoomi.com/ownership-in- jurisprudence-meaning-kinds-incidents-and-relevance-in- contemporary-times ). That is to say, ownership of a property has three main attributes. These are, indefinite user, unrestricted disposition and unlimited duration. By virtue of being the owner of the property, one enjoy no restrictions in terms of uses, disposition, as one can give it to any person of their choices and the ownership is perpetual, unless the property changes hands, from the old to a new owner. This jurisprudence of ownership is reflected in our land laws. Indeed, owners have right to enjoy their land and one cannot give a title that he does not have. As for the case in question, it is my belief that these attributes need to be reflected too. For the Court to give a declaration of ownership in favour of any party herein, their testimonies were expected to prove that the land is theirs. This includes providing a clear and settled description of 13 their properties, each, in terms of its location, size, bounderies, marks and any silent features attached to that land. Further, a detailed story from the parties on how and when they acquired the land they claim. These issues are crucial part of their evidence, for them to be seen to have discharged their legal burden of proof as provided for under sections 110, 111 and 112 of the Evidence Act, Cap 6 R. E. 2019. For easy reference, I will reproduce the said provisions as hereunder; - HO.-(l) "Whoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist. (2 ) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden ofproof lies on that person. 111. The burden ofproof in a suit proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 112. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on thatperson who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any other person". After considering the pleadings, testimonies and submissions, I have to say that the plaintiffs have failed to reflect the attributes of ownership and discharge their obligations of burden of proof in this suit. Below are the reasons for my findings. Firstly; All of them did not know the exact location of the land they claimed to be theirs. In their plaint it is shown that the suit property is situated at Vikaweshule, in Kibaha District and Pwani Region. The same was repeated 14 in their testimonies by PW1-PW3. Also, their witnesses, PW4-PW6. However, the location of the suit land has long been changed after the Vikaweshule Hamlet was divided to form another Hamlet, called Miwale. As we speak, the suit property is in Miwale Hamlet, Pangani Ward, in Kibaha District and Pwani Region. This description was well articulated by DW1 and DW3 in their testimonies. Moreover, the plaintiffs were not able to clearly identify their land during side visit, in particular PW1 and PW3 where PW1 even identified another person's land. Secondly; In their plaint, they stated that, the total size of the disputed land comprises of 45 acres. It was their claim that the 1st plaintiff own 18 acres, the 2nd plaintiff have 15 acres and the 3rd plaintiff possess 12 acres. Upon visiting the site in quo, the reality was different. Each of the plaintiff showed what they claimed to own and the land which the 1st plaintiff showed this Court as his piece of land contained 8 acres instead of 18 acres as claimed in the plaint and his testimony. Further to that, the 2nd plaintiff had only 10 acres which he identified and showed to Court, instead of 15 acres claimed. Lastly, the land claimed to be owned by the 3rd plaintiff turned out be comprising of only 8 acres instead of 12 as stated in the plaint and his testimony as DW3. That is to say, the plaintiffs' evidence contradicts completely what is in their pleadings. As far as the rules are concerned, parties are to be bound by their pleadings, see, Lupembe Village & 2 Others versus Bethleham Mwandafywa and 5 Others, (supra). Further, no one is allowed to present the case contrary to the pleadings. See also, YARA Tanzania Limited vs. Charles Aloyce Msemwa and 2 others; Commercial case No5 of 2015 High Court of Tanzania, 15 Commercial Division at Dar es Salaam (unreported). In the case at hand, the pleadings, testimonies and evidence during site visit are contradicting themselves and proves otherwise. It is clear that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Thirdly; both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant have narrated in their testimonies on how they acquired the suit land. Their ownership is rooted from the original owners who were given the pieces of land by Vikawe Hamlet, between the year 2000 and 2005. These owners are the ones purportedly, sold their land to the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be. All these transactions were effected at Vikaweshule local government offices, by the same officers including one Abdallah Apendae (PW4 and Mrisho Ramadhan, PW5). The plaintiffs purchased their pieces of lands between May 2007 and 2008, see Exhibits P1-P10. On the other hand, the testimony of DW1 to DW3 and his Exhibits, D2 and D3, show that, the 1st defendant was in the suit land from the year 2000. The agreement to sell him the said land was concluded in 2004 after paying the last installment. Nevertheless, in January 2007, one last person was paid after a claim that he did not receive the compensation. As abovementioned, all these transactions were effected by the Vikaweshule local government leaders, PW4 and PW5. I believe that, they knew that the land being sold to the plaintiffs, if at all there was such sale, was part and parcel of the 44 acres of land contained in Exhibit D2. Hence, they were selling someone else's land, and allowing the plaintiffs to trespass as the 1st defendant was already occupying the land in question. He had already developed the suit land by planting trees, erecting structures, including the so called "GOFU" in PW3's testimony. Further he surveyed the land and installed beacons around, see Exhibit D8. These 16 beacons were there when the plaintiffs came, as stated in PWl's testimony. In any case, whether the Vikaweshule local government leaders had no title to pass or they double allocated the suit property, the 1st defendant deserves to be declared a winner as he had lawfully acquired the land and had taken possession first. I invoke the 'first priority principle'. The 1st defendant was the first occupier of the suit land. His occupation supersedes that of the plaintiffs, see Ombeni Kimaro versus Joseph Mishili T/A Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, (unreported) and the case of Sara Ngonyani vs Jocye Philbert Hyera, Land Appeal No. 167 OF 2016, High Court of Tanzania, Land Division (Unreported). Fourthly; It was the 1st defendant through his testimony who appeared to know the neighbors, including Hon John Mgetta J (retired) whose land was found adjacent to the piece of land identified by the 2nd plaintiff as his. On the other hand, in his testimony, the 2nd plaintiff was not able to name the people neighboring his land. Not only that, but also, to prove that he was in full ownership of the land. The 1st defendant managed to dispose part of it to other persons as shown by Exhibits D4 and D5 respectively. This was between the year 2011 and 2012. If the plaintiffs were there since 2007 as they claim, and the whole area of about 45 acres is theirs, they would have taken measures against the 1st defendant disposition of part of the land as narrated above. The said disposition went unquestioned because the 1st defendant owned the land in question, in exclusion of all other persons, including the plaintiffs in this case. 17 To tie up the first issue, I am of the settled view that, the 1st defendant is’ a lawful owner of the suit property. Owing to the reasons I have given above, I find his evidence to be more convincing than that of the plaintiffs in this issue, see HEMED SAID VS MOHAMED MBILU 1984 TLR 113 HC. The 1st issue has been negatively answered. ; On the basis of the findings in the 1st issue, the plaintiffs are entitled to no reliefs. They are trespassers to the 1st defendant's land. Therefore, what they prayed as reliefs are all denied. In the end, the suit is dismissed with costs. Ordered accordingly. T. NJ4WENEG0HA JUDGE 25/07/2023 18