20160729 TZHC Mwanza

Page 1 of4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MWANZA REGISTRY) ATMWANZA LAND APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2015 (Arising from the decision of Mara District Land and Housing Tribunal Application No. 02 of 2015) NGECHE WAMBURA & 49 OTHERS ................ .. APPELLANT VERSUS IBRAHIM CHACHA NCHAMA .... .................... RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT MAIGE, J. At the District Land and Housing Tribunal for Mara ("the trial tribunal"), the land properties on farm No. 12 \ wi. . _ -- -issued on 18.6.1998, farm No. 126 with er No. 12176 issued on 18.6.1998 and farm No. 115 with CT No._ 12063. The three farms -with their descriptions shall be referred in this judgment collectively as "the suit Property". In addition to vacant possession, Page 2 of 4 · I I P i:,· the respondent claimed for payment of TZS 36,970,000/= as compensation of damaged crops and TZS 4,000,000/= general damages. The trial tribunal, relying on the evidence in the certificates of title of the ( suit Property which were collectively admitted PE.:.1 and in a sketch map of the suit Property which was admitted as PE-3, took the view that the respondent was the rightful owner of the suit Property and the appellant were mere trespassers. The trial tribunal also relied on supplementary evidence from the locus in quo. The trial tribunal further awarded the respondent the sum of TZS 36,970,000/= as compensation for the damaged crops and TZS 4,000,000/= as general damages. Besides, the trial tribunal ordered for demolition of all structures built illegally on the suit Property. The appellant is not pie the said decision. He has filed this appeal faulting the decision on - M:r. Philips, learned advocate who was in the co . alf of the appellants dropped all the ·grounds of appeal with the exception of the fourth ground of appeal which is on assessment of damages. He submitted that the trial tribunal illegally awarded the respondent damages at the tune of TZS 40, 970,000/= without there being evidence to justify. He invited the court to set aside the award of damages. Page 3 of 4 Mr. Makongo, learned advocate who represented the respondent was of the contention that the grant of damages at the tune of TZS 40,970,000 was justified on account. that the appellant had made destruction of some properties in the suit Property.· It being general damages, it was within the discretion of the trial chairman, Mr. Makongo submitted. He therefore invited the Court to dismiss the appeal with costs. From the submissions from the counsel the issue that I have to resolve is whether the trial tribunal was wrong in awarding damages to the respondent at the tune of TZS 40,970;000/=. The determination of damages is found in the last page of the judgment which for clarity I will reproduce hereunder . . The applicant is entitled to be paid Tsh 36,97~000/= being compensation for his damaged crops and Tsh 4/000/000/= being· general damages suffered by the applicant during the said invasion. . The bove quoted suggests that TZS 36,970,000/= was a nsatio for damaged crops. It would appear to be in the fo s no m a ~ it was pleaded. In my opinion, the trial trlbunal would not have awarded such a colossal amount of money on the heading compensation for damaged crops without there Page 4 of 4 'i: ,i;:a ~ . ,;;, tr- - lf1 : ~-( . 'I . 1 \:'----"' ! being evidence to justify the claim. Mr. Makongo has submitted that there was l .l :, T . evidence of destruction of properties on the record. I have gone through the evidence- of all the three prosecution witnesses and I could not come across any piece of evidence demonstrating destruction of crops. The trial chaiyman has not referred any evidence on the record on the basis of which he awarded TZS 36,970, 000/= as damages for destruction of crops. For those reasons therefore, the award of TZS 36,970,000/ was made without any justification. I will set the said award aside. On the general award of TZS 4,000,000/ = I flnd it to be reasonable. For the foregoing reasons therefore the appeal is partly allowed to the extent as set out herein above. Each part should be responsible for the costs of the appeal. 29.07.2016 -------