19980302 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The District Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision because the respondent's own witnesses could not establish how the respondent came to possess the disputed land. The trial court's judgment was based on proper consideration of the evidence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19980302 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: NOHAMED BIMBA LIMBENE; Respondent: MOHAMEDI HASSANI
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 2 March 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Land, 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
NOHAMED BIMBA LIMBENE
Appellant
MOHAMEDI HASSANI
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the District Court was correct to reverse the trial court's decision regarding ownership of the disputed land
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision because the respondent's own witnesses could not establish how the respondent came to possess the disputed land. The trial court's judgment was based on proper consideration of the evidence.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- District Court decision set aside
- trial court decision restored
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ZS SALAAMe PC CIVIL APPEAL NOo 0 73 OF 1997 ' NOH.A.MED BIMBA.Lll.MBENE •• o ••••••••••• APPELLANT VERSUS i'~OHAHEDI HASSANI • •••••••••••••••••• :RESPONDENT . ' JUDGEMENTo BUBESHI, J. , , ' This appeal is centred en a piece of land r::oasuring about one /ac~bich tho appellant eln;:is to belong to him. The trial court after full hearing had @'.'C:ntcd t~:::i.t piecG of l;.1:.1d to the plaintiff but on appeal the District Court reversed thahdecm.sion 0 It is nn that decision by the District C::iurt that th0 app,: o.1 is 1,.ow before this court. The District Court reversed the trial court 9 s finding on grounds that the respondent had O<.ocurife'J the land since 1974• That, this ~-iE\s in accordance with the evidence tendered in ccurt by Dl:13 and D\'14 and therefore that the land · was given to the responder,t to be used porr1anently as it were.· The evedence of DW3 Asnati Ruanda was to the e:·:t'ect that she did not know who originally o\-mec'. the plot in disputf.·. D143 ;li( :'.d knv,,1 how the respondent come to possess the ploto As for DV/4 !~tci.a,llah h1cc;seru. b:i testified in court that the respondent owns 4 acres and that th,~ one acre §hamba now in dispute was ,being tilled by the appellant since 1974. The witness added that he was not sure if the appellant's brother.gave tµat piece of land to the respondent but saw him tilling it in 1974. It is cho.rtfore dlear, from the evdlp.ende il1 r(,c,.::---::1. that even the respondent's own witnesses do not know how the ::·e:s;X·ndent came to pz,osaess that one acre l1cw in dispute. With that ;t.n no.incl v1as the first appellate court correct to upset the trial c0urt 1 s decisicn'? I think not. I have gone through both the :proceedings and the judgment of tlw trial court and I am satisfie::d that after due consicieratin:'.1 c,f the: c-,i_ .-. ·,cc en record, thG judgment cf that cc1.1.:.'.'t cannot be f';J1_;l t,=.:cl~ - 2 ... In the premises I set aside the Dis_trict G·-1-1.::+ i ,, fin:~ins 2-.nd uphold that of the trial courto The appeal is allo\·,ud ·:i tr. c. E:ts :;ct::~ L, ·:L.is court and 1 those below. \,' ./',L•. -• Delivered before Parties JUDGE 2/3/98. , '