19850625 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN THC dIGl"l cc J .'.L' ()l.' TJ.m:;nrrL CIVIL L~:. 3:,L HO. 20 OF 1985 ORIGIHAL CITY l)f:iv'E mI. CIV. Ci.SE NO. 186 OF PJi. TRICK LUT/,LE •oooooo•••ooeeoco•••ooeo APPELLANT versus

SALUM ALLI TUNZI RESPONDENT JUDGl~MENT Bf,HATI J., This is a.n nppeo.l by P:-,_trick :,utc.le Ggainst the judenent nnd decree of the RM' s Court i'!hich disnissed the c.ppellnnt ·, s suit. The appellant Po.trick Lu to.le ·P-i -:_.-,.-, ::-. e'..:iit in the Rr1 1 s Court of Kisutu clnining a perpetu:::.l i!1:ji;,:~c-:.:;io:1 to T,:strc.in the respondent/ciefcndnnt Snlun Alli Tunzi frc:_ co:i::structi~1G cm the emtrnnce to the plaintiff/ a,ppellnnt 1 s precises, In the RJIII 1 s Court tl:c :::'2c-cs Y:l:.ich co.uo out of the evidence adduced nre thc.t the o.p;_:eJ_:·. i:1t ::" t·ick Lutale has n house nt Mcnzese Vilubuni on unsurveyed area nunbered 2326. This house has nine roons with an outer house at the back o.nd it is rented ns a bo.r. The respondent is the I neighbour of the o.ppcllnnt l:c.vi:1c; et house next to the appellant I s house• The respondent beco.n buiL:L!~ u1 0:r.tcmsion to his house townrds the o.ppellnnt 1 s house thereby bloc:~:tnr t~"e [.,ccess Jo.th to the r.min road fron the ap1)ellnnt 1 s house. '.O~i:!_s o.ccc,ss_ ~)f'.th wr:.s left by the appellant 1 s other neighbour and it r.iecr::n.:l'cG 5 :feot ii.1 r,,idth. The extension to the house of the responc'!cnt i.s YW~7 blocLir..c this 5 feet o.ccess path to the nain rond nnd there by rcm1eril'lc: tl1 0 house of the appeJ:.lc.nt not; o.ccessible fron the L1a:L11 roo.c1. ,/l1en the respondent insisted

on building the extension tl101·e by :)locl::inc; the entro.nce to the appellnnt I s. house fron the DDin ro2.c1 tb:J c::...-·. ollo.nt c;ocic.kd to take the natter to the CCM office nnd eventuc.lly to Cuurt~ The defence of the ros:;on:·'.cmt n:-:,s th8.t he bed just been building on his plot and thnt he cb.u not tlock nor did he hnve nny i"ntention of blockine the rig:-:.t of '..':-:.y ·Jf t:1c ~,p:_,ellc.nt. The trio.l Court visited the place of clis;_ utc nnc1 Lmnd th['.t the footpnth which wns originally 5ft. wide w,':cs being reduced to 4ft.~·_through. .the construction by the respondent. The trial court held thnt the narrowing of the po.th did not affect the appellant be~cuse the footpath v1h~ch wc:s n private path wns erioueh for the c.:.; ;;iclb~,t ,:nd :1is ,u_stoners. to pnss through without any problen.1 '?;he tri~-._1 co1.,rt found this to be n, dispute over a right of w:::.y nnd tho.t the r,:.r:.o ·,_1c;i1t ~1:..c1 foiled to show how' he would be affected by the nnrrowin~f -t:.~e)::::tho The trinl court distiissed .the suit • • . ........• /2. . I ... 2 - In his nenornnJun of o.;,_,c,.l the o.:,_i:.:>ello.nt ro.ised two grounds of appeal which were thr1t t11e loo.rneu Lccistro..te erred in lo.w in holding that the footpath in disi_">Ute belongs to tho respondent o.nd tho.t the leo.rned Magistrate er1~ea in hol,2in{_, tho.t the extension of the respondent 1 s house

will not cause nny h::i.rdsnip to the nppellnnt. As rightly pointed out. by the learned Resident i.'I..,c;istr.:.'.tG the dispute in this case is over a right of wayi a 1;·rivnte rig::i.t of 1.1;,y to be uorc s:i;;ecific. There is no doubt thnt the appellant has n ric].i.t of wo.y to the mtin road froo his house and vice verso.. If the resJondent obstructs this private wny he will be corJDi ttin£ n disturbance beer.use he will be infringing on easenent. The rights of the ncgrieved party o.re by an abo.tenent, action for damages or injunction. The question to be considered in this appeal is whether the respondent ho..s coII1itted o. disturbnnce. The learned trial Mngistrate found tho.t who..t t::1e rcs;Jom~ont hnd clone v1as to reduce the vridth of the path fron 5ft. to 4ft. The lecrncd Resident ~.'b.sistrate C' also found to be no disturbance becnusc the po.th of 4ft. wo.s quite sufficient for n pc.sso.Ge frou the n.ypello.nt I s house to the rein road and bnck. I see no [;OOU reo.son to inte::.~fere with this findinc of the Resident Mngistrnte. I n.:.;1·oe t;:~:t r, f..:,ot pnth of 4 feet in vridth is quite adequate for the purpose of n privc..te footpath. I would only add thnt the respondent sho·.~lc1 not rcl1uce the width of the path to a snaller one becnuse this could nuount to obstruction of n private way. I would therefore c1i.snisG t:1is r-.j)]eo.l with costs. COURX:- Judguent delivered 1985. Do.res Salaan 25th June, 1985. tl