20051028 TZHC Moshi

·\s. , . . - ", c ' JI <'r i < 'i I 6 ~ IN ,~_;_i:; · HJJE CCJir.r OF l'A:t-fi;ANIA \I _____,.., MOSHI AT , ..............._ . \ ~ I (DC) CIVIL APPEi\L N0 .. 28 OF 2003 .. · \ (C/F !AW) 'APPE.~LS' ·'., ~IBUN!\L APPR".L NO. 72/200() ) 1 . ' (. ORIGINAL. ICTLIMJ'.NJ,~O •RWHiAL CUSTOM1~i L,\ND• '...) , .• t :,::.l>J\;ur..\s/6 KUctiI.,KUl,{\ YA~~.-~ 1,~. :o;~.:)•. Jl:Pis~~:1.~:;·••· · . ·. :{ LH3AL. PERs6NI\.L RBPRES~,\~ivE ) : : . , .. . ,· ( OF .'I'S .LAT:$ ~ KU CHI SALENI KUI..'~ YA) VERSUS M"tJSH! · (- A3 LSGAL PilltSONli.L m::p~}~S~rA'J~IVS) -. . -. Qooooooo ( OF 'l'HE Li.TE MKABTiffKA w/o :SALEWI ) ' . C) J U D G E M E. NT This is an appeal asa,inst the decision of the customary I,ands Ar:)<;a7 Tribunal in the Land Appeals Tribunal Appeal No. 72/::.000 whereby the ~aid Tribunal had reversed the jud1ement of the Regional Customary rand Tribunal of Kilimanajro in Land ,';rribunai case Nci~i7 of 198? and allowed an appeal 'by one MkaribikaSillawi,the Original Respondent. The record of the Regional' Customary . Land Tribunal of Kilimanjaro shows that the original complaina~t one Kuchi Salewi had contended in his evidence before the said Tribunal that he had been given the suitland by. his late father in 1933 and has been using and developing the same from the said year by planting trees, banana plants and coffee treeso He had further· ·contended in his evidence that his late father had also directed him to ltoo~ after the original Responde11t one Mka.birika Salewi with her children which he also did fully., The said oi:-igina], Respondent Mkabirika Salewi was the wife of the father of the said original complainant. The dispute errupted after the said Mkabirika Salewi, the original Respondent purported to give the suitland to her daughter one Theresia Marthey. The said original complainant'/ Kuch:i:. Salewi had contended further in his evidence in the said Tribu'nal that he had complained before the village authorities but wa's unhappy with the way how the dispute was handled hence he ftled the dispute before the Regional customary Land Tribum.l of Kilimanjaro. One Gulam$eni Rasharasha also testified in· the said Tribuna.l iii support of the said original complainant. He contended in his evidence that thP. 1 ;-.t,P ,f',,.+,l,,o ... ,...,. ,1.1,.- __ , _ , - - - "' the 'origµia.1 Respond~nt. :iI/'¢ont~nded.· further in his evidence that. aill.ce . . . : .. 1933 the_said original complainant·hadlbeen usµig.and developing the ~itland a.,"ld has also b~nipolo~_aftEll'_.the origj_nal Respondent, :t:h¢ ~;id ·Mkabirika·$alewi~ .. . .~fth.~ other hand, the. said: record_s;pi;~ further/that. in the . 'Said Tribunal, -the Original Respondent that is Mkabirika iaie~t i1a:5 represented by her daughter, the said Theresia Marthey. In 'her evidence befor~ ;· . ·. the said . Tribunal, she contended.that the suitland was given to her . . . . . • fuoth~r, the sa.id ori 0 ina.l Jlespondent Mkabirika Salewi ·. by her late husband ~ho was the father of .the original complainant, the said Kuchi Salewi. She contended further in her evidence that in 1987 the said original Respo.!ip.ent could no lonier manage to attend the suitland hence in 1988 she d~cid~d. to give it to her because she was the one· ''.vho ,,ras looking after her. She further contended iri her evidence before the said Tribunal 0 .tliat the orig:inc:.l complainant disagreed with -the ·originai Respondent and . . . . . . the issue was placed before clan members who agreed that the suitland be . . . given to her, that :is the sai9- Theresia Mart'aey. ,She had contended further before the. said Tribunal that the original Responc'.ent had built a house in the suitland and was attending to the coffee and bananas trees thereon and that. she was selling coffee in the name of her son one Sabal Salewi. The said Theresia Marthey contended further in her evidence before the said. • • I .. . . .. . . . . . : . . . . . Tribunal that she wa.s married iri the Mushi clan and had grown. up. One Joseph Izina testified in support of the said original Respondent before the said Tribunal. He had contended that the suitland ·' . previously belonged to his grandfather one Sale\'ri Nguluo, who had eight 0 wives and and had given each one her piece of land including the original Respondent the said Mkabirika. Salewi. According to the evidence of the said witness, the said original Respondent lived on the· suitland since being married by the late Salewi · Nguluo •r!ith whom she ·-,as blessed with five children ...conaisting of two girls and three--b-oys.---- The latter were all dead--a.nd: _,,__,. . ---- that when~-g±r-~e married, the original Respondent had lived alone and was assisted by Theresia Marthey. He further contertded before the said Tribunal that in 1-988~ the original Respondent, the said Mkabirika Salewi wrote her will giving the suilland to the said Theresia Marthey but the original complainant did not agree to the said matter hence he complained to clan members. He contended that clan members held that the ori~inal Respondent was·justified_to give the suj.tland to her daughter, the said Theresia Marthey. H0 wever, the witness during . cross~-eY~dination admitted that he was still a minor when Saiewi Nguluo died hence he could _not know what took place during the motl'ning period. . ·,: . ·Haying -~eard ·the ·evidence of both 'th~-loriginal 'complninarit,: , that is Kuchi Salewi and• is Mkabirika ~.alewi,r.,th~:.Regio~l CustoI111.l.ry,. and the original Respond·ent, that Land. Tribunal of Kiliman_ja~o was satisfi'ed t_ru.3-t ·the·:,dr.igi~l corripla.inatit, wis thi he:u< bf, ti1€t latl Salewi: Ngil~lUQ',an~-;~t.::h~~J~~>di:re_ct'ed: b~"his; L~t/.father. tci .maintain and look•'. "· .. · .... aft.et . t11l·sa~d;.;;t{~1~i . . /.. Respondent an~· h~:r chil,dren were. still niindrs ....... · ·, . . . ·, . It was further, sa,tisfied th~t, the said orie;i..."'lr':ll complainant lia.d··.at'te'rided the suitland since 1933-1988 •. It determined the :dispute'.in .favour of t,he said -original complainant. The .original Respondent 1 Mkabirika SalewLwas aggr!iried by the. decision of· the•,&"l.id ·-Tribunal and appealed to. th.e Customary I,a.nds Appeals Tribunal in Land J..ppeal No. 72 of 2000.- .. The said appeals Tribunal :r ·" .·r~:.::d the decision of the Regional Customary Land Tri:buru:tl. of Kilim~.j~ro i . •• . . •; ·m-~-~---~ . f~vour of the said. Original Respondent. on six. ( 6) points. I will ller·eby repr·oduce the ~id• six (6) point~: as follows: ·. ~.1 •• r: Baraza la Rufaa la ard.hi katika kuch~ns-uza rufani.,hii .. limetamb~a m~bo mu}ltim: yafuat:a.yo; ·' .. 0 ., . . _..,_.::v·t?~ ;~·: 'tJ ·•.• .: ~•!• .. _~-:• ~ :.{,P .:'·. ·.:,•.~~ ~.. ~ ..... /;-_:~~ ~-,_ ..,·•.~ ! ~-- l, I.:·~ ..... ) ~--;;__,.. -. :;· i :~ ... -<i.tt .. ,~ ·.·.~ _' i--~:.~ ..:...· .. ~•: t',/· .... . t,·, ···.t! Jambo la kwanza ni madai ya mlalamikaji, Kuchi Sa.lewi ~~ ~~:-·.· , • .. ~·· • -~. ·~- ~-♦._·. , ·•··.· • (~7~:-~ ',. t''~ . i ., l~ 'I ~ = sasa rru.-ufaniwa kuwa mlulamikiwa, ·Mkabirik,a Salewi, •~ ,· • "'l • , ' •.- j ' • f • 1,, I • . _. sa~' ~~fani, ~aim: 19P.3··amem~i~gili; ka.tik?- .ki~mba ·;-. 1:~•-: •~.: .· • ;·••:... rt,...s _-'.,. ,,. . • · . • ~_ ') ,• -~ \. • ,. ~ ··... ·.:>f~~~.e. _· ~licho(~thi kuto~'f, .kwa _b~~a yake, Salewi mwa1ka . · 1933·-·•.-'· r . ::, ., : ,·:· : . . - (·. •. •• ' ' ·.... . J.' ./ H•~\ .~ ·,: I.. . J.ambo la pili · ni utetezi wa mlalar,1ikiwa Mkabirika - .!. . . ·' Salewi, s'.3.sa mrufani? kuwa kih··mba cha kahawa alipewa na. marehemu mume wake. ( Salewi ) ambaye alikuwa !1.-"\ wake ,.._ : _1 .. ~ • • -· .. ' ' wengi;ne saba. Kihamba hicho alikihudnmi::t mreka mwaka ' ( I ~ ' I ' ~- • .. ; • ~. • • 193'3. mume wake alj,pcfariki ~--~i.1,,'" - ,-,l· akaendeloo. kukihudumfa mpaka - \ ~ -~ .. " I I : .... 'r. • -, .· ' . • ··_ ,• • -.·: .... • • •_. mwaka 1918 alipqam~-'- kump-3. mwa:r:iae, '.i:1:Jresia h,. ...-_.~,.,_~·· -•.~.:,-:1:uwa. "•( •:' ~\··_.~,r\:.t': 1 • ~:· ,· ,.f•• _ · ·, _• •,•...,°.J': ' , · •• · ·•. •. . ., : akirnsaid,ia mlalamik:Lwa kuhudu111ia.kihamba hich9 • ... ·_ .: ·.. ·-_· __, ~rf>'-;· .~ ·s;,,-~.1, ~- ::!.t \.. . . •... - . . ,,. ·'·· ·' .... , ,., ·• . . . -· ,, ~ i ·.. . . : ' ; , ;_ " ·, Jamb'o la trtn ni ilt:::tczi •,,,,, mlalamikaji tena rkuwa.·shaurj. :lilipE:lekwa ka.tika-ukoo-·wa mlalamilmji: ,; :a!Ilbao uliar.-~µa 1~wc1, ardhi apewe· .The:eesia Marthey. :;,··, {_ "Jambo -la. n.r1e ni! ushahidLwa ·Jo~eph:Leina (7) shahidi .. ;. i , ~ ~-; ~l~~~iki;,a~ ,:a:1-iyeyl.eza • i_ t ' -~ .. ~ .' . ~ . . ·... , l~;~,ra_ a~d:hi ya· :hi~~ ilikuwa- . ";'. . . 1 '' . ; ' _·ya .~babu•·-.Y.ake Sa).e~1i Nguluo a~b~ye ~;u.~wa :_:na wa_ke wanane . . ·~ ·- . . . . . . ~--ldla;,:111ke·al-irnpa: ard!1i -yakeo · Ardhi ya <l~aw:i., alipewa · ·- !111.e.l~mikiwa ambaye alihudumia ardhi hiyo muda wote tangu aolewe m. alikuwn. _na anasaidiwa na Binti yake Theresia Marthey • . ·• . .:., , Mw.aka · 1988 mla!amfkiwa alihandika wosia ili ampe Theresia Mart hey ardhi ya ~'.lav~ I• Mlctlam~kD.j i- al.:ilalamika, lakini tlkoo .ti:lirunua. ku~ m:Gt1rup:ikiwa: ~ik:uwa na.haki, ya ~urripa .. •· haJ~i mwanae B.rdhi rt1yo._ Jambo la tand ni m3.ombi ya ruf'ani amba'yo yamsisitiza •.. uendelezaji wa ardhi ya daawa uliofanywa na mlalamiki~ akieaidiwa na mwana~ Theresia Martheyo Jainbo la sita ni majibu ya maombi ya rufani ambayo y;nasi~iti2,2 mila za kichaga amoo.zo zimepitwa na wakati ku\.>!a watoto wa kike hawawez,i kurithi ardhi ya daawaG Kwa misingi hiyo, Baraza la R ufaa la Ardhi kwa kauli moja linatamka kuwa muendelezaji na koia hiyo mwenye haki juu ya ardhi ya daawa kwa mujibu wa .Sheria ya Lrdhi Na.L~7 ya mwaka. 19fi8 ni r11fani Mkabirika Salewi. Hukumu ya Baraza la Usululishi wa /"rdhi Mkoa wa Kilimanjaro. wilaya.ya Moshi katika shauri namba 27/1987 iliyotole-.1a tarehe 1~ Agosti, 1990 imetenguliwa." The' original complain.ant that is Kuchti Salewi, the ge~pond~nt in th~ CustomaryI,a.nd Appeals ·rribunal No.12 of 2003 having · >been' aggrieved by the decision of the said J\ppeals Ln.nd 'l'riburial has appealed, to this Court by his le<1al r,1presentative one Paul Kuchi Kulawa against tl~e· said decision. Likevises the original Respondent is represe'!'1.tr->r1 1 by her legal representative one Laurent Matei MushL The Appellant has listed the following grounds of appeal L· his Memorandum of .\:9peal namely, that:- 1. The ~\ppellate TribuMl erred in admitting a clan Resolution ( Huhtasari wa ukoo) at the appeal stage. 2. The J\ppe~l,::i Tribunal erred in holding that the suit land was a joint acquisition of the Reosponc1.ent (Mlmbirika) arid the father of the Appel1.arit wit.bout any evidence in support·of such finding., 3. The Tribunal further erre~ in holding that the Respondent could possibly bequeth the clan land to her daughter apart from life interest therein. Ir::. . . ·.. . I+. -The Appeals Tribunal misdirected i{s~lf m stating that I -- the Ap~'?ellant depended on the chaga custon that women cannot inherit land. In the i11stttnt case there w,ere · was no valid bequest''at ailr1S the alletl~~g,_;estator·:-~d ...........----- ,._ • : . . . . . . The !~ppella.'nt ,Tribunal failed to note the t:oritra.di6tion - - that the daughter{ Theresia) could not possibly take - ca:c e of the Respondent (MJr.abirika) while she ,,a.s married, living away from hero_ Based on the said grounds of appeal, the legal-representantive of the Appellant the .SD.id Paul Kuchi Kuh.yet prayed that the e,ppenl be allowed with costs. By consent, this Court, on 9/5/;>.005, ordered th~ pnrties to are;ue the appeal by way of written submi$sions. _ The parties have 'fully complied with the .said ,order of this Court. I will proceed to-consider and determine each ground of appeal seperately. - The Appellant, in tl1e first ground of app0al contends t 1.'.at the Appeals Tribunal erred in admitting a clan Resolution ( Muhtasa.ri wa l.lkoo) at the appeal stageo In reply, theRespondent 1 conterids · that the said i;_ppeals Tribunal did not er-ror in admitting the. s.-i.id clan resoli1tion as it was real evidence that supporte;d the 'whole caseo Tbe . . '.. _.· ' issue to be considered and determined is whether the said Appeals Tribunal erred in admitting the said cl.::m members r,:1solution ( Muhtasari wa ukoo ) at the appel1nte stage. _, On pa.ge 2 of, the typed Jud1ement, the Appeals Tribunal stated as follows: B .;',raza la Usuluhisbi wa arrlhi_ 1 .., ',_, ~ - .'.osh.i na anarufani kwa sababu zifuatazo~- 1o Baraz~ halikuzin6atia uamuzi wa ukoo uliotolewa~ mlalamikiwa alir,.mbatanisha Muhtasari wa ukoo wa tarehe 13,Juni, 1987. ,:- In my considered view, I quite agree with the submission of the AppelJ.ant that throughout the hearing of the dispute at the Regional Customary Land Tribunal the said clan resolution ( Muhtasari wa ukoo) was riot produced as evidence. If the said Mkabirika Salewi had such very important document showing that the clan members supported her claim then she should have produc'ecl it during the trial., - ' - I, ':·;::f furi;her:~qtiHe agree 'witr1 the submi~sion ·of ~of.Itembo: that the said. ·. ·: document i~ much more suspect when one considers ·its'. d;t~. of ... ·.. 13/6/1997 because at this time the Regio11al Housing;T±'ihililal wa~. · >a.lrea;.dy m progre~s, therefore it \·fould not have_ b0eii possibl~ to convene a clan meeting ~nd resolve to ~ive the suitlancl. to Th~.resia\· · when the dispute was befor-e the.,JEial Trib,unal. Arp.i~ the eyiden~eon • ·.. . record ( page 1 of the proce.edings ) sho~$ ~tha~:-wh:ert:..t.!J.e d:1.spute fir'.st ,, · · a.rose between the parti~~ it was referred. . 'to 'the Village ""'ct~~~r~'ent arid ., . . . . . . not to the clan. For the aforesaid reasons,I.co~pletely agree with Prof,.· Itemba in his submission that it was wrong- for the appeal Tribun..'1.J to have admitted and t::tken into consideration a document that w,;s ·not · produced at the trial before th_e Regional Cli,-t:.;.,::try LfEuirl Triburi.;l. ,_ I find and hold that the first ground of appeal has merit. The second cround of appeal contends that the ,'\.ppeals Tribunal erred when it h0ld thttt the 1o.ncl in dispute W'3.S jointly acquired by origin:-tl Respondent (. Mkabirikc. Salewi.) and her late husband Salewi :Kula ya. Therefore., the issue to be considered and determined by this Court is whether the 1\.J)peals Tri bun'· 1 so erred., It W3.S a finding of the Appeals Tribunal that the land in dii.,pute was not a .clan land but ~tas jointly acquired by B}.e said original Respdndent and her late husband. Prof.Itemba in his submission contends thc.t·the issue of , , whether or not the b.nd w::i.s a clan land was never consic'Iered at the trial stae;e, it was quite a new matter r:J.ised at appeal stage. On the other hand, the lcc:i.l reprGsentc.ntive of the.original Respondent contends in his reply submission tJ:i.nt th0 issue of whether or ]J.ot th0 land was clan land _,ms -raised at appeal stage and that tho disputed land -12.s not a clan b.nd but ,"~ccrnired joint 1y by the original I:kspondcnt anc1 her late husband S:::.lewi Kulaya. 'rhe snid le;!,ctl repre.sentative contends further in his submission _that th•a late original Ro:::spondent ( Mlr,11birilro:) was among the eisht (8) wives of 'the l~te S::ilewi whe:rGby he had given a piece. of land to each one including the sc1 i 0 F1·,.,_h{r:i.ka honce the s-:-lid it was a~tonishing for the orip.-iti.al ,\ppellant to h<we contGnded in his evidence at the trial th2-t h:; ,.,.,as giv,~n the suitlnnd by his father the late .3alewi while Mkabiril-c:-. had her own children to take c2..re through the said suitland. Having considered the submission of both parties against the \ts- -~:-~- thes-~~ord· is concerned~- th~ 1 1 t'riai at; the" ~gioiiaL en-st,~· Lan<i1 ·-:Tr1biiml •'had ·proc-ed<!ed' .:>n -t:'he -basis· that the·-i..and ··-~s·· 1goverri.ad by :·c~sto'furir&, 'ia.'i.-,, of the Wachae;a tribe and· had evolveq. .through- customary··_or ',•, . . . . : ~}~: tfnur~ ,:. _ a~ 'submitted by Pr_or.· ;tamba. Th-~refore~. it ·wa,s an error' -Ori 'the. JlOint: '6f:, th_e .appeal8'. Tribttm.l· to have acc-epte,i -an'.a. acted •011. the ,' >:. , :_/:'-·- _\,:· :.i. niq.i.ter a~i ii·:.{t ;,·:~~-·;. f~ct -· iri "is$ue ,an~- ·the s~i;ousn~-~~ ·.6f, the , is·.~: e~ror - ---::;::(;·.-: ·:-·-----\\11a:/ 1/~g~ds ~~··_the·ro~f-·of the· jurisdic'tion of "th{·t;,,~-Tribuna.is below •. ' ) .,_ ·•\' '-- ·_· :T=q_U:ite agree· with the· _subrrlission of· Pr6f.Itemba "tha'C:if. t.he suitland was • ,·' • 1 • ' •• , • • ~ • ·,: ., . · \ · : • •••.• •• ~ · n:ot . held under~ cuSt-Oniary tenure, then· both ,Tribunals -~e1~ow-~ha"<l no 0 ·; · · ' :· Jurisdiction to--,dea~ ·\;,ith tht:'matt~r hecause··-Bo~ll of-:them.~~re ·es't.<1blished .to'!adjuc~te. 0~ ~tters cbncerning' larid: h~ld- Ol~:.g5ver~~r~;,cust~ry'lm~. . . . . ' Th~reforo,' unless .:the ·bu1.tlandiwa·s a"··clan Lind and'•had evolved according to customary ,iaw both- tribunals>below ·-lacked . 'jurisdiction. ': . . . . ! .._; -.: .. /·~- .. ~ . ..... .· ' .1 ' . .· ·.. .· ~rthc_r, I quite agree with the· submission of Prof .Itemba that the ., ~ .. . . evidence ori record shows that the the suitland -~as a'clan land and was not. jointly a·cquited as held by the appe~!s TribunaL Mkabirika was one of :the -~ight- (8) wives of the late s.-::i.lew~ and on his death lantl was divided· up and the sa~d original :Responrtent, }1Y.abirfr..a, came to live oti' th1f s''1it:i.~ti,:{~iii':Fch thc:1 int'e'~-SEile\-A~ ~ave 1 'tb His '.son, .the'; origilial' l 1 4 , A\;~ll1~1t.:•1:rru·· ~lti \ai:s;· ·giie}i. the <luty•·'to, '.J..o'ok ·aft\er and take care of' ·'\ 1, .... i ... ; f~"'' /• • • I ' · .,-. •..,. · · , . : r- • , .,.-• · • • · ,, , ~ • • _ • • ... • . ., _Mkabi'rika, tha original Respon:Jent his stepmothero I' quite agree 1-lith . ,f•,•-<. ,..... ,:,,· ,.,_ .. -111 ·I·~',.,,,. ·..-r., l · ~• · '<1-. ' .• . th·e·~subiniffs'ion o'f Pro'f~Itemba;; ·tnatJ -h,,.tF·the 1 suitland: been jointly:·. · -· · -o~eta•.:J ;..-bf'Mk'db1iJil6.:·an:d"<iate·:·s'.-il'ew:i.,~ then':'upon>th~ cleath ·of Sile~i~ , MKa.h'l'.rlka'·: wb~1a_L l!Llv°l~. ·~ claimed~ h'er' ,. '•13hb.rc ':' but ::the·' fa-ct·~ t1w.t1'Mlm.birikai - ab\f~ptka. 'fj::{~"' &tvi'si'on' of- th~ ih'nd '. b:f'' lha; 'cJ:an ii1c,'irtt" thtJ;!'th'.e' ·suitb.nii :·w..ts . al cii;h:· lo.nd'n'nd'' lier 'dlai'nii =ot·:rjb int : cwiiership' ~/ere~ 'arr· h'ft,ert nought~\-_ ' . , l¾s~lf.'oh -t!He' a1'o?tsa1ci/"-i h:HJ:it'and'" ·hdirl ·tbt''t'he:i sebond grouhd of· • •• i: ··_·,,. ;'-,·,-~,,·,.-_.t- The-.third ; .. . . con_t~nds:_ t_hat, .the -~pp~als,. Tri~AD:~l\ '-; - g_round 1 ~f_nppe;t~. erred. ,~wh~11 _:~-t .foµn;:l , :cha:!;_ t"h§. R0_9 ~9£~~en t :~o~j.~1. b~<iueth 1; r: ;~he. _sui tland to her daugh,ter_ !""!:x•·•, ·· 011.e T4eresia • t..-1~1• ..... M,irt).1.ey •·:·J,. ...._..... o , • . ~. The •- _isf3ue to be· ·;"',•;-:-• ... , · , . con~;id_er1:;d ),, •. ~d •_f , .. ,,,,.,., "',· ~ 1 . deter~ihE,;d ·i·s, V:heth~r- r•,-~}•1 •~{:n-::: (•~ ...... 7,; ,,i' ~.:_t ••t" O :~• i. •:•h~ ••1 ! •.,.. •1:•! • •c •~ '• • •,·•. ·th~- _t5a_id. fi~~ing ~(;the ·;.pp.r3r1ls· T;;,ibµnai .-1i?. c·orrect. _,,•~~t 1 •••~'.~ ' ' • The. legal reprcsenta...--1.ti_v~ of the original Appull_ant __ i71 hi_s submission t;:~~.'.:l.,L_I -...: . . ;1 JC . :: :· ... ; - ~,:• ..,!· .. - '.\,., : .. : ·'J.'! ,·:r.,.:l ~. 1· .....: •• ·, :.~~.:J: i ~~... ~--' co~tends that _the finding w.,,~ correct on the ground that T:,.cr.esia Mo.rthey _ ti_ r.L-.." . ,__ -; ·}~: \ : ::" •._. _.. . ·~·-~, ~: ·: ;, :_ .· :... _ '. ~,_. • .. ·,. l. i ~ • -.• tJ W8.f3 :the. only r~maining _child o.f Mkabirika, among her_ five children_. '. ~ 1 .: 1 · · · _ <.:: .. : · -~ 1 .t - . . ! • _.• J. . -. · : - . 1· ·:: ·:· : ,;. _ •_. •· .r ·. · , · 1 i _ .• i • l ... ·,·. _ How_~v:er, .P.roJ.It~mb~-.ih,,his submissio~1 cont,~nds, quit~. correct).y_· in_l!IY ~)•': t: . 7" •-.,\.'~ :. ,. ) ,. • ;:· ':\_ ··;,' •:' ;•• :---,-. ~.:7-'\, i r '.: .~ •._. -':/• 'J •~j t,-.-t~ ••{• t ..' I • ~- -, • ( I ,·i • • • cons:i,dered-.:v;iew·that, th~ 1.,findi1--.g 11.qd po q,2..sl,.s.i;},,that ir: order·,to ., j.J"• :~!'"\"',!. > •• •'• .l :. • "'..i.•o1,, • • •, ••:~..- .i. ... 1•••••~ ~, •• ••.t' •1 ' •:, '\1•. c.•1.•• ,: • \ ~~~u,,e~i~J-,Pi ·i ,has:_fi;f~ ,to._.: Ot\,ft1; •1the~-~ ~~'.l-~-~i10 ~~~~de!~C': l~n t\~f:!!;.~?-~ ·: trib-gruu .that Mkapirila,i. ·t'., 1 • .,l,-.;·.,,•' •..,~,.~: ,3 . • )- ;owned ..•rthe: ,._ .. ,_, "~, . su-it1ttffo.· .,· .;'.,. • , .. ~., ~ .' she. :was left i!: tn,e suitl::i.1!cl .j J. - •.: '.. • ' ' . f ,. :.':'_: ... ,, ,-.·;}, : . by; r~~! ~~t, ~,: ~u~~9-1 ,Si'!-1 t:_wi .;,i!~ ,· ~-h ~;\1're~~ .?-1:- ~~~ .:•-~3/ ig~:.1.-::i.l; A~po~la._:1-t;'. :·· ~;.1.c>;ii s·ai~~.i_,, -f•-~e :.::4?-,~. ;_1?-~- the_ h~~.'.-~{ .i&.tlew~, ).et .. al<?ri7 _a . jo,i_qt _()~r~~Z:•,. ;.,{!E:.r ·. o• '- J.., • • . " •• : ._ "' • • ' • •• •_, ~ ' • o , ' I ,_ < interest iD the.· suitland.-ywas not different from the other seven wivos .of 1 • ,h ', ' ~ , ' ' , .,- i ' 1 • ( 0 , , • "• , I . "'1° •: ; • ::.•: '",. I• j 't f ~ ('.. ' • ' : ·. ..· . : .; . ·· . . · . •The· evid~r.c~ on . 1·ec6rd . . shows :• . that Theresia got.· ma:~•ried in 1948 or there about b~t · th~: original f.ppellant, Ku chi __ Sc1la\oli contir1ued. to support. Hkabirika, th~ o±-iginal .Resporident ,,liritil ~he11 .Mkiibfrika;,.decided to give a 1,;ay the stiitland to Theresia allege'diy; . by ; wili: : H.?wever t as suhmitt etl by Pron Itemba~ _:110 S~lcli will \Jas / .. pI'o_d116~'ci dJring t~~ trial at the trial ;rribu~l- .la~;a. th,ere~ wa:5; ,n6'. dlttn,/,<~- :; .; . supp~rt\ . I qi:lit·e agred \4ith the submission or· Prof .:Ctemba -thzit 'the purported dispos3.l or ~.eq_ueath by Mkabirika. to Th0resia Mamtcy of the f i· suitla.nd was· in·,;alid hence the sa.icl._ Theresia would not acquire any I ·. :----..t . ~:-. titie ·to t~1e_·suitL:1ndo'·. Hkabirikn the alle;;~d-t'estator hcicl no title · herself •·1e1;~e ~he could •not confer an; ti;ie of the suitland to the said Theresia Marmthc;\', her daughter. I further quite airee witl1 the submi.ssio1:. of Prof .Itemba that even if ther0 w.cis a valid will it.s eff<Jct would have C('lrtie after·'the death of the testator, h.owever.~ at llie t:Line'of'the trial, Mlmbirika w:.is still very much nlive h;)nce the findi!lg of the· .t.ppea.ls Tribtuul th:it Th')resia Martey h:i,2 foll-:'herited ;the suitla11d from her mother, }il{abirika~ tho original Respon-:lent had 116 basis- ;s correctl;y- and rightly submitte,l by Prof .Itoml::J.,.· Based or: the afoiesai:i submission. of Prof~Itemba, I fir,d ,rnd held tha.t the third ·gr~ur.d of appeal h..~s merit. · The fifth groui1d of appeal conti:;nds that Tb::resi:1. Martey could not take care of -the_ original Rcspon-.:lent, Mk::i.oirik.:"l. ( her mo~her ) as she (Theresia ) was married and living for avm.y from the di,;,putecl land., The issue ·to be considered· and determined is whether Theresfa. could take care of her mother ( Mkabiriko. ) as she wan living fo.r :J.''1::J.Y from her after being ma.rricd. The legnl represenb.ntive of the origi:i.1al Rospor.dent in his submission contc::ds that the late Nlmbirika on the death of her husband she wasleft with the suitJ.and and he_r dnught0r Theresia. ho;1ce she nee:1.ed to not to be taken cc:re from anyone aad. that Kuchi S,:>.lewi~ the origi:-:.al !.pp,:llant could not take ca:ce of Mk:1birik:.1 a.s he ha,l his own mother to t::dcc care and that nft,,r Theresia got married she got c. 300d chance to support her mother Hkabirika as she used to send c;rnn1chil•'ern to sleep with he~c as ·well as attending other matters or works. However, it is the submission of Prof.Itemba, which I quite completely agree wit~, that the'Ele was a finding of fact by the tr:i.al tribunal and w~1ich was not challenged at the appeal stage to the effect tbat when Salewi died in 1933j Theresia was a little girJ. hence she could not take care of her mothor.1 that is why Kuc 1.-::.i Salowi~ the original 1\ppellant W'.lS given the responsibility of taking care of Mkabirikn and th.at when Theresia grew up she was married to the Mushi clan :fo.r from the suHland such that _there wns no way she could attend and suppo1·t her mother- ... · 9/- ~- .· \·;_·.... •, .. _._ ··:· -·• · · :._ · _: ?4kabirilm to the ext(mt of deserv:i.ng to be her heir. ·- l~'inf:~onsid?red ::view, I- ,;uit~_ i-.gree _w:i..th: Prof_.. Iterr.l:a in his' submission th.-it .it '\-1aeiJ:i.rt ;~ .· "irrbr on the-i,a.rt of th<{·,\ppea:i...Trib~na.;i_t··.·ntoe•···•sf:,ui. n1'.dt•.··:··l:_,aa,·:_:_·_nn·.ad··.•:.,_.c··,o.:·T:hc_le._:.;u_.:·dt'-_r:_u·_te:~.-a.·o·:,~_..'m·. :_;: _ __...: _. ·. :_~--.·:_._:,:~.:_:..~- -;'. .·.·····.;· . . ·, ...•· :- . -·•r1kbj;rika" . . . . wa~. :the":one ·who had developed .· . .. .. - . ._ .. _:·and 1evelbp~r :bf. the .-su:i. t·10.;1d. w=:is" };uchi saie,-ii, . t~Ei. o;r-ig~·ria~ :cb'trtph!inan\" :\ ·_:, _'. -'_.: :.:-_-:---:-::~~·:/o~d--~l~cl .he{~ bj t~~ _td.~i Tribu~)-. when it ·$tated ~hat: .··- .. ·.-... , ii · papo hapo :i,in~thibi.t ike. kuwa;: mhlamikaji ndiye _amekuwa. · _·akiwutu~ mi:~lamild~,a rri \v'atnto wake -~n1b~; :w,:,_lia.ch\..a . : ·._r wakirigali:~;_d~~o- bado· ~i ·marehemu b.:.ib~ .yao. Salewi.lt This. 'find:tng ·-· t•.·. of th~ trial. Trib_~l wo.s _based on the evidence adduced . be'fore it°.'hence ·:the· ,\.ppeal Tribunal in my co.nsidered view erred. when it".; h:eid that: ·· '.; Kwa misingi _hiyo : , B :r.1za • la Rufaa la Ardhi linatamka kuwa ·niuendelez:iji na kwa. hiyo m,venye haki juu ·ya ardti ni mruf. mi }1kabirik:i. ,Salewi1!., In the final analysisi I find and lwl:1 that the fifth :?;roun·CJ. of. appeal ... has ni~rit • ,-.,._, Ba.se9- on the aforesaid grounds of appe11J. 1 I 7uite .:,isree · with Prof.Itemba that the Custcr:1ary J.,an·i :'i.pp0als Tribunal erred w],en it the sound and. clear jun.gement of the Regional Custowary .I,a.nd ( 1 ·,, Tribunal. · •rhe jud({ement of the sni<l 1\.pp8al Tribu:n,'1..-1 does not shov. any faults. of fact or of reasoning in the jud.r::r-::mer.t of the trial Tribunal. · ';rhereforei the appeal h.ns merit ann I hereby accordingly :·. -i-.· \~al];?~:' it-wit_h :,costs~ 'fhe decision of the !tppeals Tribum.l is hereby __ · quashed· :c1nd set aside and the deci,3ion of the Re~iono.l Custom:,.ry La.nd Tribunal is restored. It- is so ordered. · · ··· · Right of appep.l explained• ' ' 10/ ·- >. <f, .... ;.: _;_ ·: :~ ·./· . :- . ·.. ~ . :z~'- f;~.:~:;nf • .... ,:•.. - •.·:·.,_:·iFGR ·T"iIE-iiiESP.01'f.ogNT: ., -, •. .',:, ..:·...~··~.. >J··~.- ' . ._ Pr~::c;ent. _;·-.-\_·_. -~·:-. ·:· . --~- ...., . ,.... ·_.· __ ·::·.- '. '. '/::.::,'.,... ·. ·.-~':-:· .i-! . '•• , .. .i.:.· _.,_··- . ,.·· . .·.-..·:;i'·'. _)·)f:F:1('.;,~~r.fl~.c::··\' ...:.:,._:; .:;_.;_ •: .·i. ,·..·\::;.;.,,. ·. '• . .-"· :?•~!: . •;u~;:~~~: ~iii~~- ti i'h.•pr~sent~ of th~• leiJe.l r6preseniativo o.f :the. f~ppeJi~~t- _arid' in. -the, pr'esenGe::.o:f.;·th~--i~iiat r.ei,~Menfat"iste ·. -·. -~~-P~}het Re~pqndent., _. . · · ..,. · ::,:_. _,/ . .c. C, . . - ·:-.-~-()-~.- .; . ., . ·,, -- \'. j j I ·;·1,:::' \:.-: r .. '() JUD3E, -· ,,. 28/10/2005· . ·,,:--,.\,;;;:;~;;-;;..:;?.:.;,.J. . '.,. J