N

IN THIS H1DH COURT 02 TNZN1J4 T JI jPPELLJ'Ti J'J&)c.TlCN (pc) C1V.i.L APPEAL NO 100 OF. 1 975 , • (From : .the decision of the District Court rf .Bikobe at Bukob -z in. Civil 4ppeal No 177 of 1974 - Before .. N. iusotn, isq; District Yagistrate and Muhutwe Prim - ry Court Crigioal Qivil C - oe No. 61 of. 1974) V.. crr' r- 'Ibt, fl. flLJ.'fLT.L LzJj.Jy3n. o .,o,00e.o D.Cfl,.ö.$.00 OOØ6t•I••b.Ô var sus BERNARDINL KSIGrU, ) . ••.••.• ......RSPONDENTS DIMJSC.N UGUSPIN SUBJCT: inheritance .df. afarnily shamb. JUDGMJNT ICT1TI, J The appellant KIxUJNG1 i(S1GA, file? "o action at Yunutwe Primary Court against the first respondent, dcl :L1&; sIie(1st reson.dënt.) h.d! given a;ay clan property — shamba to her son, a non clan member. She sought that the same be distributedas itwos thir J.a'te f a ther! s estate the lst respondent bein her sister.. The. ciCIm was unsuccessful, in the Primary Court, for the reason that the apooilant failed to establish her claim. Her apea1 to the District Court, was equa1lr unfortunate, because it was dismissed, on the bjs of two':froiits'.— that as the appellant's father died son1cs ; , the. said shambe, wnj 7JUncated to La urant Karemela, under the then custom:.ry feudal eplpitivo.. s -istem, and secondly, that as Laurent Karemela Miraji, the lst raSpOt1O11t 1 S SOfl':had$Stayeu in the said shamba for over 54 years, without anyacJ.y .t:;kiig cray steps to dislodge him,\ the action was really time barred. Luru:ot Klemere Miraji is said to have scld the shanha to the 2nd raspondeab for 150/ in .Jandarr, .1974. o •. •. .... . facts undisputed are, that the: po1lent and the lst 'respor1dent are 'Sister sharin2 .: common fathur. L:u'ruat. KalenerMiraji whh rpi'esents, Ca the lst rsaondent aaprs to a tn sa f the 1st respondnt This Lau±ent Kaleme±'a iir'-:ji claims to have rid, the dipu'ted shamba to the 2nd. iespondent whose entry into the.. sham.U: ,ro yoked ani led to '±his action. Before the claim:J. sale, Laurent Kalemera "iraji hd bean living o w.thjis mother in tnis very shumba, and has so done for the last 54 years. Laurent Ka lemeila Mir-aji told the court, that the shmbá belongs tohirn,beade it wos 7iven to him by. thu chief, _:his fath±' under the what 'I ar no prepared to call feudal •system upon the apellant's f.ther dying on1es. .. •• On the above fcs 1 would like t9 frrne the issues as fo1ls:- (1) heththe appe1lnts and ls : resPo 1 ent' rather •. diedpn less. • : • ' (2) • If (ys) whether inde.ed Laurent Kalemera Miraji wac granted the same, and ii there is eviddnce to that effect. . . . . • •: ...... i (i) is negative, ow did 'Laurentiraji get the shamba if at all. • . . 'Was Laurent Miraji in occup.'jon at any one time? Wether +he action was timu barred? (6i gas' there any purported sale? On the eviieñco, it is clear even to, Laurent Kalemera yir 9 ji that - theshamb in question is maternal prhperty, and hi acquisition of the same, by inheritance !ovt of question, so long s the paternal relat±ves are living, in fa.ct I gather,t's because of thi that he leaas his ownership against rcnt by the ch.ef. again although, the trial court held that the appoilant' s fthrdied sonless, this is in fact' a rnisdjject ion of the•ev - c. The rcori itself shows that the appellant's fa -bhr had, three s'ns — Njunwa Kirene, Tibaijuka Kirenge and Bvn'a Kirenge 1thoL.gh, on The demise if tosir father, the three sons t pr 5nt, ti.eytinjü:.' outlived him. In fact the - - • V• parties agree that they contribLiëd .;ny to bring Bwanga Kironge from Tabora. He come bfck home in l954, and ocoor-Ling to the appellant, Bwanga Kirn:e was nthroned as heir cviii nce is evn supported by PW3 Gerhi ffiaka nd PW2 Kagom'boia da. t•;iih, and the respondent No.1's witness 1 so ±hot it wes rnisiir'eoton on Jhe part of the 1st appe11a* 0ourt to holJ. that the appellent's fathn died son1ess It follows, that since he was not sonLss, there was no JG at oil, avid. -'he chief cu could not have reclaimed beck the shqrrup. in question -- to be in a position to grant it to the responient No. ls son Icr rent Kalemera oiraji. Pusuiiig issue b'c ()' f'ukth, on tILe VlLflCC available., there is no evjdence of grcnt by the onief aport -' ron mere assertions by Laurent Kalemera T,iraJ10 Thre no mevit LDfl of 'Ki) iib' i a gitt by the Laurent Miraji to the donor nor any witness 'OMUId all necessary that the chief oranteii Inc some to him. IiIho District Court macia references to these aspects, but never direct - i-ta m:Ld on whether there was evidence to thot effect. In fact on the record available thpre was no such thing as "KI3112TeBE' or "OUHiiSc' nor "MUTHLY' It cannot therefore be true that that Laurent Kalemera ira.ji ct the shamba as grant from the c ief in tois very dir ction one f 1' o sub — paias in viaragraph 616 of C & H provides — "Tf these (conditions) sh tfl ove as pe - requisites) crnaIira n. ore not fulfill1, the plant uime it s not been given to the occupi r wh h only been gran -ted on unsufructa'ry G in it, as pleasure of the owner. '.'t any time V the ower or his heirs may retract this urubtory right and 'iOh nd th return 'f thir propeity" As shown -aboe' thererequisit'oo for a o,r'nt 'of iand either by thief or any landed gentry are not cvii noed on ruceend in any ca, the chief :wouhd not have mbd a such a grant, knooinn,'acull that the male . owners .,wr.e:.theie.'. - Furtherriore this would h'avo heun an unlikely.evont, to happen, as infect; it 'would seem that c:'.i'f rb e orded this as an in — laws' home where h. got us wfe - tb. m Gh.r )L ui nu 'ireji from It is also surprising that no ciefly, mrrbr lie c)j1f5 clan came to sort this c 1 aim. From there ' c"me to the qubstion whoth.r Laurent Miraji was. ever ".ih Thossesion of 't'his shomba and to the knwlutge of the appellant. The 0 evlidence shows that the lst respondent ar - 0 living in this shemoc, after failing her marriage. It would seem, that it was after that marriage's break down, that hu son Laurent TViraji o'mc t live with his mother. Whe-th under Lnnlish Law or Customury Law, possesion has two elements — there must ha tha thinn to be possessod. - or Corpus, and seconhlr there must be the" aniñues pOss'iien&j - the iitention to appropri ' te to one self — the exclusive use of the thing possessed1 It is with these in minds, that I am là test whether Laurent MirI'u's -in possesion during -all these years. " Of course admittedly LaUrent LTiriji had 'ama -thor shambaa In my view and on this evidence, the 1st respondent. is the one who was in possession til inheritance by Bwanga .Kiron a and thereafter. I cannot see vude this record, the point of dc"apt'n-e, when possession would have left that of lt resoencLvit to Laurien ji The first tnspondent has been in this shamba till 197, when she w 1ooved from this shaab - , and to say that Laurian Niraji was the one in poLLsession and not the 1st respondent is to misread the evidence, It .ioeprs that the L'aurian was noel even living' there jobrmahently I road tIoià from' his ,own.'cviience in 4iief,when,he said,'a , . .... V .'TVTiai18 do 1 nhllmwe kaia S3babu ye uon3wa, hivyo rilimp -i i a i-a No 2 s -iarpba alitunze, takini bead-a ya 1 ynra am.kusa nguvu, sZl.?nibC nilimuuzia m -'No 11 kwa shilingi 15 O00' arehe 2/1/1974" .tD(tD.f JYflOD HOTH TZNTM1 IJT.JT)I • •r .U.it1T pLmjJ o. 'Weq q. uoeq Ju pip '- js o. utjodird ejam OTM uepuocTsot qs- etq. pu tCjij qucjnr iq.t eqqo.0 ol quepuodsai pu eq 1c;J rJi qt 'SM tci ppui eis Jt pu •S.SoO IM PGm011s s't 1dd ciuj 'tJO Os i: pucIiw'J S 1 O,UC11)ddt1 aqq. jo St cWLqS ?LJ. q•-Tq IflJ 4 PePUTW I 't°-V UQ •uos JeT( O tqJi AI .OU p[tlOM SCXqUT ejil E STuo pt OT.M '.UeptZOdS)J S - eqq s JtoE ' os 'upucds e T. u oq. sstd oq. uqou P T 'II p IOfl1CT Jt ucAc pu uTqscnb Ut UJus JO eSEOJnd JO C - S tons cix SM tA Rw u wetos uep'poej e £ut'tisd 10Etfl UOtSnIOUGO Ljq pto A c.uuOO uo 'spu.S eqtouooeJJi eiuqe e7q.WOE1 1 'eWES eu Jo esrOrn pu 'dES JO pd)ftE queiuodse PU? eq pu t C rr.j quJi .qumbes - flS .tUO St •ç-i rijts EU (9) tZetW tuEqWELs OUTU ES es .'trW tti /etEWTN qwEts EM tZUTW '2UE ttIEqWEt[S EM)IaMOWIU tWt —:SUtpeeOoJd et jo (t7) aed uo.As oq. stt. pt quepuodsex PU? eq i'DT'O°T Joq3.: US •9 TZetW eW se3fGws 'IUESEWEcf 'cznnulnjis UO5EWE( owti4c 'uEqwEtjS °T —:supaeooJd eqq. jo (?) eEd uOES O. STtT. pq ICEJIII qUoJn'Erj •pJEcq JcEW CSEO tCtOq sw -tb -jo ET{ O. sesuc'dsej eonpodeJ SpUILU Jreqq. 'puiqoxopun oj UçpnCJJEp ueq eq oq. xeedde uepuodseJ PU? dtj r PUE qUerc1r OUESWflOJTO UTEqJCO Ut SpUtiJq OU SMOUj eOue1npnEJJ qj •eoEid e- pr tlseO =/0001 9i XOJ EqWES eqq JO co11e E?t JELjOE4M Si uoiqserib Si: .&'1 •EQWEqS eq. .roq VTpO?o1:T qU dSOJ PU? Ct UEI4M ESOJE UO14OE JO OSflEO ejq SE pBJJEq Wt SM etS eT4q. iCS dJOJJdT4. p1rOM I. •l,:eep eqq JO MOUj LS UCLTM t'L//o tic prj s uotqo3 ELI OTTLlm t7L6I/T/? uo eOEId ue. eeij o. p-c;-s ;:: eEs p0201 -[e dt{ edTES peWTL1:O C JdpUfl UotEdOOOo oUi u@Llm 'L6i W0JJ SC JCT. qsuiC2E uEJ O. ss ei.eq pTS Eq U..O 'UEITEJcIE E14 Jo dsTJdIns 8I 0 'Joo ejLq. uapuodsej PU? ° ' t'L6i Ut pAOWdJ SCM 4 i{tWEJ etT JO SJEqWCW .IetO SC rt' ,ItJN JOJ 'uTthtOOo jo s)utddej. TIE tq -u'; eqUJ.us Etfl. Ul SCM OUM j.StS S UETTCddE etq stf •Jetjqow stT4 c. tqqe o. tCt.itj qud.rr1Lr dos O. UCIIEddE atTj xoj uewntl ut eq eSThOO TC, pr1OM IT 'pmJ ji v4 eq PI°°t IcEJTA q.uajnvrj 'se 'peJeq4oLu OAti qu pTnom iEq.weqs eiq. Jo COUEUC.tITEW SE JEJ SE -[E8t S 4 jOW SIT qUCt3 5114q. Ut 5UTATI SLM Ctj ji .aLfl SUEEUI Stt