19990922 TZHC Dar es Salaam
The evidence supported the appellant's claim of lawful acquisition from the deceased, witnessed by the Ward Chairman, and there was no basis for the District Court to reverse the Primary Court's findings.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 19990922 TZHC Dar es Salaam
- Parties
- Appellant: Omary Athumani; Respondent: Joseph Tadayo
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 22 September 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership, Inheritance, Appeals
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Omary Athumani
Appellant
Joseph Tadayo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Second Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant lawfully acquired the disputed piece of land
- 2 Whether the District Court erred in reversing the Primary Court's decision
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence supported the appellant's claim of lawful acquisition from the deceased, witnessed by the Ward Chairman, and there was no basis for the District Court to reverse the Primary Court's findings.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- Decision of the District Court set aside
- Primary Court decision confirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
/41~/<M;,, ·,···f/.lJfa- IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA DAR ES ·.-. SALAAM . DIS:TRICT .. ·.. . REGISTRY ' - ' · AT 'DAR ES SALAAM . PC. CIVIL APPEAL .. NO. za·oF . 1997- '· (Ori,ginating. fr?m Kilosa LJistrict Court ·No.23/96 Original ·-?1i:rgol~:" 3/9~ Prim_ary Court) OMARY .ATHUMANI . .... • •·••• ,. •••••••• : •••• APPELLANT ' ·' VERSUS JOSJ;:PH TADAYO ................ ·- ... RESPONDENT • ✓ BUBEStiI 1 !!,: The appellant was dissatisfied with the District Court's decision when it reversed.the of the Primary Court findings to award-possession o{ a piece of land to the appellant. The evidence·which was given during . trial was sh.ort . ,' and clear. The app~llant· testi:fied to have been given th~t ·piece ', - of land in 1994 by one Shaban~ Makutule~ now de•aased. ' . _The transaction wa~ witnessed by PW 2 Ibrahim Poromoka ~ the Wa:rd Chairman, .-....'those evidence ga,.ve_support to the appellan~ . · ·claim~ ',rhe respondent, on the cthe.r hand claimed that the ~iece of land forms pfirt of a,_. bigger pa~c~1 · of ·1and that he · .... · • inherited from his late father, and that.he has been t • .J. .. • filling the' land ·for 35·: y:ears. now. . The evidence of PW 2 Ibrahim P:oromoka is. crucial in these proceedings/appeal 9 According to his evidence, that piece . . ~ of land belonged to the deceased Shabani and boundaries were ear marked in presence of both parties. I think is is important to observe that if the respondent had :(e~t aggrieve~, he ought to have sued his relative Shabani ·Makutule or the administrator of the estate if there · ~iis. &fl~~ .. th~. ......_a,pp~J)afl:t ~ ·' ,: ....._ was given that piece of land by .... ,- ',•!· t:.,.,"li ...f·' ~-- ~~ . • Shabani Makutule in presence of t·he p~,i 2; Certainly going ••••• /2 r - •. L-°•,l"" .1: ! .. , ....... --: ·.' t • ~.J l .(. ••• 1, ;.Ji·:, ;_.:t{,d-;:.t(~·:;-_f;\,:f1'.':~.·/, . ·.· ~·::.;·,Tt-·j N:·:J';~~. :"~J..i:~·· .,...... . • . 1;.- , ...· ·-· ·: . .... ,...,_r I.:i :.i.1 ·..;::_. ~ .......;, v-.• ' .. \ '·i. ~ .' .-.~- :?::~~ ,.... jt r •· ,· / 2 by the evidence o• record, the findings of the trial court cannot be faulted. I have failed to see the basis of the reversal of that judgment by the first appellate court. In the premises. I allow the appeal, set aside the d decision of the District Court and fonfirm that of the Primary Court, the· appellant to be awarded costs in this court and those below. ·, . . t. i /\ . Delivered before: t --.. ., i ' ··.\ {~ A,·, I/ I .J. -·\.. ..:.)l _f,¥,Ji\:/tA A.G. BUBESHI. Appellant in absence JUDGE of the Respondent 22/9/99