20020320 TZHC Arusha

\J . -~,; AT ARUSHA .,'-·· CIVIL JffxBAL NO o 18 OF 2001 _(RM 1 S CoC. 78f19m KIKATITI VILLAG.ifl COUNCIL & 26 OTL,tRS • . "" 000 9 D O APPELLANTS • Versus - GUSTAV KINYALA LYIM_O_._o_.__._ ..... •._•__.,..::_.,_ _• .,... _o._ _.,_.,_.,_ _ _.,_._.,_ _:_R._IT:_S_j;J_O_tr_,D_W'_·1_JT_· J U D G M E N T MSOFF'E, J. This is ® appeal 091.inst the decisi:>n of the Resident Magistrntes' Court of Arusha dccl.!:1.rinc; ~he respondent. to be the lm,.rful cwner of the. piece of llli'"ld Dn Plot No.27 Block B J_ocated e,t Kiks:~i ti VillttC},:, Arvueru District, Arusha Recion. IIis case was os:inly that the land was allocated to hi ·1 by the Lnnd Office way back in 1990 and he ho.s been pe.y_?.n[; the necesso.ry rentel cha._rc;es., '1.10 this 8xtcnt he exhibited R Letter of Off0r Noa 121305 (Ex:ho 1?2) o.nd. ·two re~eipts (Exh., I-'3) as evidence,. Ee Kitiubo who clid not OiJpe~r to support bir.1 r.mch. nde-·' : not recor;nize t; hG author l t7 ~ · ', '... r ~- ;)or:dc- ~-.. t; over the di: ,-,_ a resurvey of the uisputed. land, subdivided it into smaller plots and allocated. theL1 to the other 6rppellnnts,, And in t· considerat~on for th~ allocations eoch allocatee paid to the - .. -~---·.:.:-- Village Council Shs o 50 ,000/= 2-s contributinn t·ow-ards a pro- ,.:...-.--- posed water proj ~~-t ... ---·· ··~-· · · --~,,'"·....:. .· ·-· . In its judgr:1ent, the trial Distric:t.:Oourt wns satisfied ____ :...----· -· -~---· that the respondent-nad. (';ood title over the land in issue aml. .,; ';,._::~· hence the jud~r:;ent in his favour .. T.he. pet:i. tion of appeal consists_;of a total nunber of four pointso ,_ Eow:ever; ··for ·purposes of a clecision::.in this natter I c1o . ! .. not propos~· to· deo.r with those points.. Rather, I: an of the view tha.t there .are oth~r vital points in the ·L1atter which will be enough to dispose it.aff. . : .' '· ~l1e · flI'~t iJoint th.st l1a~ ·. e~or.cised 1:1y r.1ind 1s this:- A look at the pleadinc and the evidence will shc,w that the .res- pondent hs.s teem clai r:ins title by virtue of the 1990 nlloce:- tion which was alle::;eclly Dnde to hi□ by the Lend Office •.. On the other hond the Villa?e Council claims to ho.ve better title and hence the resurvey r,.nd 0-llocah.cn tc th(' o~;her o.pre1lnntso Governn0r.. .t ( throuc;h the :rney Gener:11 of course) necessary· p.3.rty to the suit., By so doing the Court could hav12 . . been in a better position to deteruine ovmership. This step wa.s particularly Dore irrportant □ ore so because the Land Office was r:1entionecl es havinG allocated the land"-to the responJ.ent • and a;J;._?.o in view of the fact thnt t..1s_ it turned out_ ~ 9 t_~~~--I?W2. . . .. • v •••• ···• ...... and Fv/3 (both- testif'yinc fron the. L:md Of:fi.oe) appeared to differ-.on: the cwnership by the respondent· over the disputed piece of land,,. In the circui:Jstnnces, if the Goverru:1ent had been made a party the Court could. nlways. :be in a better position tci ''apj_Jre- ciate the facts end t;.rrive··.at a· just decision. ThP. other point is whether the 1st res·;1ondent Villac;e Council wos rec;isteredo ·T o.ppre·ciate 'thcit in the lower Court this point w.::is canvassed. by M<;sisrs, Maruna and Mvrnluko lenrned counsel 9 but in its judc;r:·jent the said Court c.1icl not consider i to In his written sub11ission to the lower Court on tho po;i.nt Mro Mar.uID~ :wa? of the view that the Villge:;e Council was not ref;i;_ .stered in terus of the relevnnt p:r0visions -of 1I'l]:£ __Local Govern- capacity of a corporc:'ste entity capable of suing or being sued .. On the o·ther hand j Mro Mw2luko ·was of the.: view t;:1-:,t the Vill.:1gc was .::·23i.'::tercd. by virtue n-f' QN LQ/19~o In DY view, it w2s not only nece,ss,9.ry to show. ttiot the Villnce v,ros _5,{3-_ze~ted~_, It was also n2cess0ry to show that the Villor;e had a Oe.£t~.£icate · of incorpora.tiono The Certificate we.,s a further requirement --~~ under B .. 26(1) ... -•,:,.,.---- _,_ of the . c.1bove Acto Once the Certificnte was avai- ' ' Corporate c:r..,r.:;.1d s,ue, and .be sued. To borraw the words ot: mY brother Mac¥anjn.,. Jo in Civil Case No., 9/94 ~aloashauri ya The best, evidenc:e of the.t rec~istration t." "· o o o e .. ., o o o 5:s ,double -·pronr:.ed;. ···-· __. .l::-:ublication . . :! .. in the Gazette and c.. Certificate of incorporation. The tvw requirer;1ents go 'in ·tandera H., Hence in tl-:.<c:' absence of, evidence 6,f the above "h!.,~ requirements~ it could nY\ be safely ssid :md coriclµ,d~d_ ·that the 1st respondent was/is. a bO-J.y corpornte capo.ble" of su_ing, or beinr:; sueda The f-:i.nal point thet has struck f!1Y mind is the fact that a look o.t tl-.:2 jud6 r.1ent of the trial Court will show that it wa.s written 'oy h::-,,.. Ho Shsidi? Resident Me.Gistrate and Sifi~1ed b_y Mro Ko Mo M.. Sru:1bo, Resident Macistrnteo Surely that was. "tvrcmg the judg□ ent has to be writ"jen and sic;n:::d by the -i;,residinG; Judc;e or Mac.;istrate., The.best r✓l2,, Sambo could do in the circuwstances • deliver an already sit3ned jude;r;1ent o was o.nl.y to ........ Also, in the • absence o:f Mr .. Shaidi 7 he could hove E£IlE:£ the decree in terms _._~_r_,..-cw~.a- of Rul.3 8 thereto. In the lic;ht of the abave shortcornincs I will allow the appeal albeit fer different reasons .. In consequence thereof I declare a nullity the prcceedincs o..nd decision o:f the low\::r Court and they o.re accordingly quo.shed ancl set asideo For the avoidan~e of d.c)ubt 1 either party is still free to institute a suit in a claim of the disputed piece of land subject of course to the Law of Lioi tation,. .Since this cleoision is essentially a result cf ,.ij own research and reasoning I will not Doke an Orde:, I E o.s to costs .. 15/3/2002 r·. Bo Khaday - DR For the Appg+]..-~~t: Mro Mwaluko -" Absento Fol:' the He~~9ncle11.-J:;: I"'Iro Maruna Advocate - }?resent. ---=--~..,...-- Mr. · Ma.ruma: I t2ke brief of M.r .. Mwo.luk," COU£.t~ = .rhe rulinc; is re0d .:mt today 20/3/2002 in t~e presru.c€ o.f 1 ,, . in the absence · of the Ccunsel for the Appellent .. . ;I/it !IJL-'-1 ,, ·,-, B '" "~;~:. t~ .i:·., ~.iU ;;