Tanzania Judgment

TZCA

19851007 TZCA Dar es Salaam

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Maria was not entitled to compensation for improvements as she knew the property belonged to Ndele, but she is permitted to remove materials she added at her own expense within a specified period.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Maria is at liberty, at her own expense, to remove the corrugated iron sheets and other materials she expended on the hut or land.
  • Maria's right to remove such material expires on 31st December, 1985 or two months from the date she is informed of the order, whichever is later.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Maria d/o Sheyo

Appellant

Ndele s/o Mlozi

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the appellant (Maria) is entitled to compensation for improvements made to land belonging to the respondent (Ndele)

Party arguments

Applicant
Maria argued she made improvements to the hut and should be compensated for them.
Respondent
Ndele asserted that Maria knew the hut and plot belonged to him and thus was not entitled to compensation.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    High Court and Court of Appeal reasoning

    A person who knowingly improves property belonging to another without consent is not entitled to compensation for such improvements.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Maria was not entitled to compensation for improvements as she knew the property belonged to Ndele, but she is permitted to remove materials she added at her own expense within a specified period.

Court disposition

appeal dismissed

  • Maria is at liberty, at her own expense, to remove the corrugated iron sheets and other materials she expended on the hut or land.
  • Maria's right to remove such material expires on 31st December, 1985 or two months from the date she is informed of the order, whichever is later.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

TZCA · 7 October 1985

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TZCA

Judgment· 7 October 1985

19851007 TZCA Dar es Salaam

ti., ., ~ -.:}; 0 IN THE CO!.JRT Op APPEAL Op TANZANIA I CORAM; MUSTAfA, J oA.,; MA.KAME°::L J .o ~'; And KISANGA J.oA. CIVJ;L APPEAL NOo 21: OF 1983

BETWEEN MA.RIA d/o SHEYO,; • o O • 0 ANb i NDELE s/o MLOzr e • • O C it O O RESPO ENT (Appeal f.r,om the Judgment of' thE> High Court of Tanzania at Mbeya). (Mroso, Jo) dated the 21st day of May, 1982 . ( ,,.·. ~=15 _);;i.Vil .- - ~- : : : :,__ ., l. JUDGMENT Op TH}~ COURT I :u) 198] \ -~---------~~-~ ffl!,STAF/\, _Jo~.;; This matter f"J)r)cer:ning a hui: on la pie ;e Of \ nd arose in a Primary Court, w.ent on appeal tc a District to the High Court. .And now from the and th.en judgment 9f t e High Court an appeal has been preferred \ : i.s courto ,1 Ndele. was the plaintiff in t 11e Pt;;Lmary Cour,to Ndele _alleged that he had purchased a.n unsurvey.ed plo,t in MwanJel a area Mbera £rem ◊ne Tembo Mwangos1, and in 1955 Ndele built a mall hut on it. Tem,t,o corroborated Ndele on this matter,. and • t Witnesses also gave tes_timony in sc:ppor~. (., othe+ I I ,. Ndele alleged ~at the husbac,l of Maria, the d fondant at the Primary Court and the appellanC in this. appeal, as ill · 1 'I · sometime in 1976 a~ • s a l l - d by ~e1• to stay in that hut free•of Charge, '.lhj_s piece of evidence ,:,as con£i,:,ne by Tembo. Ndele Was a police Officer on.active duty anci was se .ing outside Mbeya. When he returned to Mbeya, in 1978 he iscovered that Maria'$ husband had died and w;cen he asked Maria to vacate his hut, Maria refused and told Nde.Ce that the hut ha beJ,onged to her late husband. Ndele had to 'eave Mbeya aga:j_n •·n the couqe ,••c.o_ao/·.,• ,, 2 ; i 'I ·il of his official duties and when' he returned in 1 he found 1t '1 that the thatched roof of his hut has I been . remo and corrugated iron sheets were put'. on inst!;:!ad .. I( ,i Eventually Ndele brought 'a case against 1 Primary Court which found in fa vour of Ndele.

I JI . • it !: Maria appealed from the Primary Court judg to the . • II District court which allowed Maria's;appeal. ,) ,, As Court judge (Mroso, J.) rightly rema kect, the rict Court ' 11! ; "leaned over backwards and questioned the author Tembo I !l , MwangOsi to allocate building plots in ,1 the " area". The High Court reviewed the evidence and' came ·:;to,, the concl sion that , II the decision of the Primary Court was right, and estored its judgment. ,, That should have been the! end ~f the matter However Maria obtained leave from the High cdurt (Samatta, Jo) to . n appeal to this court. Leave was granted on the g ound: whether I , . ! the High Court "was right in law in dot•consideri g the question I 11 :1 for the improvements the applicant (~oe. Maria) a legedly made to the plot on which the house ktand~i" ,: l ,I • j \! , 11 • It is clear that Maria had put ,;up the c0rru ated iron sheets 1 .~ 11 etc~ knOWiog fully well that the hut and '1plot belo ged to Ndele 1 and there is no question that Maria d:>ul ,1 ' d get com ensation for improvements in the circumst 3 nc,~so However we wi 1 order that I 11 Maria would be at liberty, at her own expense, to remove the !j corrugated iron sheets and whatever o;j:he,;r materia she might • ti / have expended on the hut or on the lahdo'. Maria's right -~ :i l '> to remove such material expires 1on 31,~t December, 1985 or two I months from the date she is informed of /the conte ts of this 1 order, whichever is later. ij I ,: 11 .: ..• / 3• :1 i 11 3 ... - ,1 J The appeal is dismissed. As ne'itb.er party as appeared. ,. . . . l·· r: before us b-y:· c:bunsel or in person, w 71 w~ll make n I order as to, costs.• DATED; at DAR ES SALAAMi-this 7tri .. Ii day of· Oct er, . 1985. ~ . 'I 11

I II ti I! ! Ao MUSTAFA :i 1i JUSTICE OF AI'J?EAL .. :1 tj :I (/ .. ·---~:,_ Ji i L. M. MAKAME .!I

JUSTICE OF APPEAL I I R. H. KI SANGA:, JUSTJCE ;()F APPEAL:! __ .. - .. ' f ,._;,;~ , ·, I certify:.that th~s_('i_s, a -tru:e o:~Y of the .. x.iginal. -----"'-'?~( < :t ·; a:~~-P _.,---MO·s1u:) : . i ,· SENIOR 'DEPUTY REGISTRAR.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.