19950203 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The appellant failed to prove continuous possession or cultivation of the disputed land, and the new allegations raised on appeal were not supported by the trial record and are inadmissible. The lower courts' findings are upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19950203 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Ltoli Nassoro Ngaweje; Respondent: Joseph Chalo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 3 February 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Lower Appellate Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Customary Land Tenure, Burden of Proof, Appellate Review
- 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
Ltoli Nassoro Ngaweje
Appellant
Joseph Chalo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Lower Appellate Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant proved continuous possession and cultivation of the disputed land
- 2 Whether new evidence and allegations raised on appeal are admissible
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to prove continuous possession or cultivation of the disputed land, and the new allegations raised on appeal were not supported by the trial record and are inadmissible. The lower courts' findings are upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Decision of the lower appellate court is upheld
- Judgment to be read by Deputy Registrar on a date to be notified to the parties
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
.·' ~"{';l ....,. .-,,,. A'£ PAR ES S~-1 (PC) CIVlL APPEAL NO. 149/93 LnlI. HAf.>SORO lIDAIDNJ'E < ♦ t I • f t I • •· • • ♦ • a • JOSEPII C~LO • , •.' t t t t • t 9 o o o • • • < c 4 ♦ RESPONDENT :&is ie : :~ sooond aa,pe~ ..;;rising from tho dooision of KIDOD~O'ff'PA . . ~:¥l~Y Cour··.J within Kilpsa. District, in respaot of a. dispute oval: an e '! ~o pie .10 of land.+ Bo:f'ore the P.rimary Covrfi tho appollaltt, one LtQI UASSORO IIGAW?U:J., ~d ·: ·bl-lo Respondent, one JOS!n'II Cnm:EW, seo~ 1 . . . to JZOOovor such disptr~od pioce of land. 'Iha .P:rimalzy court deoid.Gd ~- ;favo1;1:, of the Respondent. The _appollan~' a _appeal ·bo tho. lower ea:,POl~iJa ;our~, also ended in f~ur of ~o Rosponden-'~. J3cil1g furthel' aggrlewd. . ·- ' ~ suoh ~aoision ~e a:ppollant has decidod to p~su.c his SGat'Oh f~ justioe befo:r:o ti.is oouxt, _As found b?' tho l,o!~~ courts, it is oomraon g:t<oUitd. that "lihc_ ,parties are oans:Lns. It is also QOllllllOl'l gl'ound tha-'i; as ea.1."ly· as 1943 tho appe~ant, "bog(r~! :r witb. othGI' oollo~s, ·of· whom was tho Fi'. 2, one F,ASTJlDJ: ~ . 1pq11cu. up S:.1.ar:ib~s ~om v:1.:,:-gin land, at -IKOU. v.Ulago. Tho appollant nianagod. to oloat' and -~..G~te~ 'cv.ltivatil1t' ·about~. ~,es, It ie ¥ , ~ , ~und. t!1at la-'lior somotimo in 1952, th.a Rccpondont and tho ~pellant 1 s fathor also movod to such ville.go and l:r'lictr"ted esta.bliahw '\b.oir o,;m :e~ns. It is also Qommon gr-:,u1id. tl1rrt o-~or since ..12.2.€:~, . . . . . . . . - ·~ ''JI .. a.ppolla.nt obtai.11od omploymoll,t in the Miltj._stry of Communioations,. He ~,,. :Loft suoh ehcJ.i!iba. aiid •nt ·to wr~ j3,t, Ui.l~~ -~tat;on. .. .Tho appellanti a . ~ 1)~o;~ tho trial. ooiwt that who?'l:ho ~ro11;:; to -~;Jilil.tJlli his sh~a, ., • s iof~ i.'1. th<;; hand.,3 of his relative ollc Po-'liC~ Ma.ssoro, a.nd.;tha.t lmQll . . Qaid_ .Potor 1b,o. . Nasso:ro pa,ijsod ... aw.a;, in. 19621 .SLtoh ·£Jhaml:>a was looked. . . . ,. after . by his dallghtc,r 0110 ROZ6t'tA, r..ll):t NASSORO, _could not f:i.lld ~pport ~ , ;} . . '. ,· . . a/ry ~ ;'\_ ' ... :. 'bhc 1-r.i..~ss_os . ... . 1m.o tostifiad for. him•. . lToi tller. was an attompt . 1Qa4o ~ the appoUaa.1-'.; JliO oaJ.l one ROZALIA.f as 0110 of hie wi tnassoe. \ ~ . .' ' , ' It is also undispittGd that after retiring from his cmployme11t i n ~ . tho appellant wc1rc to sottle a:C ~ v.Ulago 1-mG:J!o the re Eipond,G11t b\it not . . . . ' ' . ; ;. ., " f~ clom Msoworo villa.go' li.1.o;i:G tho RQspond.Gnt livosf It, ia'ovidont that - d.i·sr:tttod sb.amba sometime in ·.-~;IS silieo ~io lcf.t . to tho dl\Y vli~n thi"s;; i~~o a.TOSG :::o:::o'timc in ~92,:tn.01 apPGUant n~~ ~-_"80 of tho \. ahalnba. i11 question. · ""· -~'-· ;·· Ht•~CI 2t 2 ... ~us in absence of row oviclc:100 that dlXrb.g albh · period suoh ahambas t'IO:t'O ao-'i;ually lJoing 01..u. tivatod by a:;;y otter :poi'r:,0~1 SU.Oh as one ROZA!itA1 as allo{;ud by tho appellant, such sb.2,;~bas ,~ouJ.cl ).1avo tttrnad into naar. virgin 1Jush, that oou:I.d, 1,.1Jldor oustoiila,'cy law lrold holding policy and. tho 001.uitry' s land polioy as a whola,., bo disin'i1Jtttab.~ to any o-'Ghar :person in nood of the sai.1e. It is homrv.o:z:,, St~Niaing to noto that il1 his mama .of appoal tho ~pol.la.n:b has come o-..r:'c with allegations which a:t'O 1tot at all roflooted · tn,. hie da.sc befor .1 the - lorror t:r:ial court. To:r insta.11.00 in. his 1_st ~ot;\d · of ~poa.i. ho ho o:l.aima, among oji;hor things to havo oioa.i'od and oultiva.tod. ~i;v.~. (1,2), acres of land 1ihor.oa.s 111. his reoor.dod ovidonoo befor.o tho . irial oou:rt hc- :talkod of having oloa;rcd about -'~e.~. (3) aorGs of la.nd.t Jjl.. his 3rd g:r: P.nd of appeal ho claims that in 1989, , tho Respondent l'lOllt 10 ROZf\..LIA 2.:.: :. c_l:,kod -t0 be leased two aQJ!os of land.1 -which ho was aoo~~ so loasod; r.:1:.'!. that· H was vi1Gn the said RO~ hail fa.llon siok and ha4 hospi-'fi3.lizoc:. · a ~990 1 that the H.osponden-'i; for.oibly aoqu.:i.xod six (6) mo,x, . . .~1.•p_s, and plr ughod _1::Lth a t:l:'i.1Ctor tho who:c - lru1d of e,ight ,sc,s, tho subjoot et this cli.Erute, ai'-'~oJ'.' liL:.ch, i.t is a:lcgcd 3 j.j.1 1991 when ROZALIA had .. ' .;eoo~ol'ad, .:i10 filed i10.r oolnl?la.int w.i.-'.;h tho CCII offioo, but as by thon tho Rosp011.dan--~ was the C.OM c11a:1.rma:n, the matter oould not bo attond.od. to. All tha-'G, h01-rover, is no ~ e to be found in -'.;...1-ic l!ooord of tho trial oottr~li.+ }Teithor has t:1ore boon any complaint -'oo oha.llongo tho ooITootnees et suoh .i:'GOord., It follows tl.le::eef'ore that :;-nc:.1 is all now information, ancl.' tho:.:-of'orc una.ocoptable betoro. an appellate oo~u...1;, Further, in his 5th gaound. of appoal tho appellant malcos tho allegation that whon ho 'book his oomplaint. before ·~lu; 'W~d Tribunal, tho ~ibunal dooidod in his favou. b~ r-equ.es-tcd him to givo ono aoro of land ·l;o tho Rospond.cnt 1-.bich hG ·~cod to do. Yet according to the record of the t.1'.'ial oourt it appears ··-·- ~at i-'a was l-m.on tho Wa:L'd Tribwial dooidod to p~oel off suoh disP1thed ·p:f.ooc of lalld that' mad.a him {am_3ollant) disatisf iod and thon dc-cid.Gd to r. tal:c -'Gho matter to oot'.r-t. Apparently suoh reoord of tllo trial coUl'·li is in agroc1:1er..-'.; 1-ii-i:ih ·llic rcoord of the Rospond.G~~li I a ·story to the of':feot tha;'i; clisatiaficc."'.. uith the dcci ::io·1 of tho tol'llolOoll 1oa.d.erships he d.eoid.od . . • I j to -~a.kc -'ahe □att0r t.::: t:.lc Ward Tribt.mal 1 ,;-ib.:.c>. dccidcc. that tho Rospondont ·should give thG ~.yipcllrol"~ t.wo ac:.":s, -;;:.:ich hc·i".::VC::' could not bo aocop~d by -'Gho appcll2nt, hcnoa his decision to trJ.;:o -:::1c ::1c1,t·bczt to court. . ,' . . In. tho lii:;llt of -'aho f or.ogoing I :?ind JJzy"so :tr 0011strainod to u_phold. . I '. tho ctooiaion of the loi;-ro:r a,ppollato court and M ~ this appoal with tfGtSt ••••• •/3. ; ' ' 3 .... l)Glivared this 2nd _d.aV- of Fobrua-cy, 1995, at ~ o~ Salaam, in. tho / ll'J!O$G110G of• 14 ~ - JUDG'f} ~~~~ ~W,,. Mwaikasu, d". Jloth parties aJ.lscm;. . .. . . . . • ~¥➔- As both :pr.;r·bios a'qO absont, ju.dgmen.t is -bo bo road by the. Deput"iJ 1.-:ogisi-ral' Il!gh Court ZionG on a dat~ "bo bG notifiod to the p,:_:•ties. / ¥.~~; S.oJ-Wi:l,. . l1c-.ncnto 1 SDR ~~ for tho appa1lcU1t 1&osont for th.G :11cspondc11t QQ:i }.faAumbu {t~s) • Tho ju.d@ncnt . is .. road in tho proscnce. of .,i;ha parties tofu\Y;, 317d. February, 1995• 1/ ·, A. a..~MliNENTO 5112troR DERJTI REG'ISTRAR EIGH COURT .....---- 'J/2,/1995