20190916 TZHC Mwanza

/ ..... IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY ATMWANZA LAND APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2015 {Arising from The District Land and Housing Tribunal For Mara at Musoma; \: -- in Land Appeal No. 46/2013, Ilangi! M. T. Chairman} ,. MANY.ASI MANYORI ..........................................APPELLANT VERSUS MASATU MUNUNGURI ................................. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 18.06.2016 & 16.09.2016 L. ~- MLACHA, J This is a second appeal. The appellant, Manyasi Manyori was sent by the respondent, Masatu Manunguri at the Ward Tribunal of Nyegina within Musoma District. He was sued over the control and ownership of a piece of land which was established to be 248 by 117 foot steps by the tribunal. The ward tribunal ordered the land to be shared equally to avoid future disputes. The respondent believed the land to be the land of his originating from his grand father. He obsevered the appellant as being a stranger in the land and could not see justice in the decision. He appeal led to the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara (the bLHT). The DLHT 1 could not see the logic behind the the order to divide the land. It reviewed the evidence on record and accepted the evidence adduced by the. respondent that, the land belonged to him. It took into account the existance of a former case between the respondent and the appellant's father, Civil case No. 66/1999 of _the Primary Court of Musoma District at Mkirira (Manota PCM). The appellant's father was defeated in that case. The DLHT set aside the decision of the Ward Tribunal hence the present appeal. Before this court five grounds of appeal were lodged against the decision of the DLHT. They can be redused to two grounds of appeal;· 1. That the evidence on record did not show that the land belonged to the respondent. 2. That the DLHT erred in law and fact in holding that the appellant is a trespasser in the land. The appeal was argued orally and parties appeared in person. The parties being laymen could not concentrate of the grounds of appeal. They submitted randomnly. The appellant submitted that he got the land from his father who is now dead. The land belongrd to his grand father. It is over 14 acrees. That, his father died and left it with a dispute with the respondent. He is now fighting for it on behalf of the family. The respondent. defined the suit land as being 1 1/2 acres and that it was 2 invaded by the appellant in 2012. He proceeded to say that the appellant's ..· u grand father was invited by his grand father in the land. He lived there but vacated in 1963. There was no problem up to 1993 when he saw the appellant's father- building in 1993. He sent him to Mkirira Primary Court. He defeated the appellant's father but the appellant invaded the land again in 2012 hence the present dispute. · I have considered the submission of the parties in the light of the record closely. I think it is important to high light some· parts of the evidence adduced at the ward tribunal to assist us to get an indepth picture of the dispute.The evidence of the respondent at the ward tribunal has the following among other things; 1 'Mwezi 04/2011 mdaiwa Manyasi Manyori alivamia sehemu ambazo baba yake alinirudishia. Na kipindi hicho ni/1kuwa Dar es Salaam kikazi, niliporudi amevamia eka tatu. Baadae akavamia 11 eka zingine ambazo nilishinda kesi na baba yake... In response to this evidence, the appellant said as follows: 11 Baada ya mdai kuwashinda Kisunga s/o Serebure, Malima s/o - Serebure na Manyori Nyamsukura mdai alipewa ushindi huo wa eka nane (8). Walipopima eka nane nilijua eneo lilobaki ni langu kisheria .... " 3 · ,·, It was admitted that there was a case at the primary court. It was v" filed by the respondent against Halima Serebure, Kisunga Serebure and_ Manyori Nyamsukura. The said Manyori Nyamsukura is the appellant's father. The primary court made the following decision: "Kwa misingi hiyo mdai ameshinda madai yake. Aende/ee kumiliki ekari kumi na mbili alizopewa pamoja na hame lake... / The respondent was awarded 12 acres plus what used to be the residence of his father (hame). He won the case. Attempts to appeal to the district court of Musoma could not be successful. It is not correct therefore that the respondent was awarded 8 acres only. He was awarded · 12 acres plus hame lake. It appears to me that the appellant returned in 2011 to claim a piece of land which was subject of the former case in which his father had already been defeaeted. He was clearly a trouble maker and tresspasser. The decision of the DLHT is soud· ~nd justified. Appeal dismissed with costs. Judge 16.09.2019 Court: Judgment delivered in chamber ·this 16th day of September, 2016 before Hon. L. M._ Mlacha, Judge in presence of both parties. 4 5